Search

Introduction: Primary care provides an important opportunity to detect unhealthy alcohol use and offer assistance but many barriers to this exist. In an Australian context, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) are community-led and run health services, which provide holistic primary care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A recent cluster randomised trial conducted with ACCHS provided a service support model which showed a small but significant difference in provision of 'any treatment' for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it was not clear which treatment modalities were increased. Aims: To test the effect of an ACCHS support model for alcohol on: (i) delivery of verbal alcohol intervention (alcohol advice or counselling); (ii) prescription of relapse prevention pharmacotherapies. Methods: Intervention: 24-month, multi-faceted service support model. Design: cluster randomised trial; equal allocation to early-support ('treatment') and waitlist control arms. Participants: 22 ACCHS. Analysis: Multilevel logistic regression to compare odds of a client receiving treatment in any two-month period as routinely recorded on practice software. Results: Support was associated with a significant increase in the odds of verbal alcohol intervention being recorded (OR = 7.60, [95% CI = 5.54, 10.42], p < 0.001) from a low baseline. The odds of pharmacotherapies being prescribed (OR = 1.61, [95% CI = 0.92, 2.80], p = 0.1) did not increase significantly. There was high heterogeneity in service outcomes. Conclusions: While a statistically significant increase in verbal alcohol intervention rates was achieved, this was not clinically significant because of the low baseline. Our data likely underestimates rates of treatment provision due to barriers documenting verbal interventions in practice software, and because different software may be used by drug and alcohol teams. The support made little impact on pharmacotherapy prescription. Changes at multiple organisational levels, including within clinical guidelines for primary care, may be needed to meaningfully improve provision of alcohol treatment in ACCHS. Trial registration: ACTRN12618001892202 (retrospectively registered on 21/11/2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Contrary to stereotypes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are more likely to abstain from drinking than other Australians. We explored characteristics and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who do not drink alcohol. Method: We conducted a cross‐sectional, representative survey of 775 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (16+ years) in remote and urban South Australia. We explore correlates of not drinking alcohol using multi‐level logistic regression. We describe reasons for non‐drinking and harms participants experienced in past 12 months from others' drinking. Results: Non‐drinking participants were more likely to be older (OR 1.35 [95% CI 1.21, 1.50] per decade) and unemployed (OR 2.72 [95% CI 1.77, 4.20]). Participants who spoke Aboriginal Australian languages at home were three times more likely to be lifetime abstainers from drinking (OR 3.07 [95% CI 1.52, 6.21]). Common reasons for not drinking alcohol were health and family. Most did not report harms from others' alcohol consumption (79.6%, 76.9%, urban and remote respectively). Stress from others' alcohol consumption was the most reported harm by non‐drinkers (14.5% and 23.1%, urban and remote, respectively). Discussion and Conclusions: Culture such as speaking Aboriginal Australian languages might have protective effects that promote abstaining but was rarely explicitly cited as a reason for not drinking. A greater understanding of local values held by people who do not drink alcohol could help inform health messaging and other interventions to reduce alcohol‐related harms. Understanding local reasons for abstaining can help tailor health messaging to suit local contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Alcohol screening among Indigenous Australians is important to identify individuals needing support to reduce their drinking. Understanding clinical contexts in which clients are screened, and which clients are more or less likely to be screened, could help identify areas of services and communities that might benefit from increased screening. Methods: We analysed routinely collected data from 22 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations Australia‐wide. Data collected between February 2016 and February 2021 were analysed using R, and aggregated to describe screening activity per client, within 2‐monthly extraction periods. Descriptive analyses were performed to identify contexts in which clients received an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test consumption (AUDIT‐C) screen. Multi‐level logistic regression determined demographic factors associated with receiving an AUDIT‐C screen. Three models are presented to examine if screening was predicted by: (i) age; (ii) age and gender; (iii) age, gender and service remoteness. Results: We observed 83,931 occasions where AUDIT‐C was performed at least once during a 2‐monthly extraction period. Most common contexts were adult health check (55.0%), followed by pre‐consult examination (18.4%) and standalone item (9.9%). For every 10 years' increase in client age, odds of being screened with AUDIT‐C slightly decreased (odds ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98, 0.99). Women were less likely to be screened with AUDIT‐C (odds ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.93, 0.96) than men. Discussion and Conclusions: This study identified areas where alcohol screening can be increased (e.g., among women). Increasing AUDIT‐C screening across entire communities could help reduce or prevent alcohol‐related harms. Future Indigenous‐led research could help identify strategies to increase screening rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Methods Results Discussion and Conclusions Regular screening for risky drinking is important to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We explored whether the rate of screening for risky drinking using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption (AUDIT‐C) questions was disrupted at Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) during state‐wide and territory‐wide COVID‐19 lockdowns in 2020.Retrospective analysis of screening data from 22 ACCHSs located in New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. These services provide holistic and culturally appropriate primary care. A multi‐level Poisson regression, including AR(1) autocorrelation, was used to predict counts of AUDIT‐C screening at ACCHSs.AUDIT‐C screening was suppressed during state‐wide and territory‐wide lockdowns in 2020 (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.42 [0.29, 0.61]). The effect of lockdowns differed by service remoteness. While there was a substantial reduction in AUDIT‐C screening for urban and inner regional services (IRR 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15, 0.42]), there was not a statistically significant change in screening at outer regional and remote (IRR 0.60 [95% CI 0.33, 1.09]) or very remote services (IRR 0.67 [95% CI 0.40, 1.11]).The COVID‐19 lockdowns in Australia likely suppressed rates of screening for risky drinking in urban and inner regional regions. As harm from alcohol consumption may have increased during lockdowns, policymakers should consider implementing measures to enable screening for risky drinking to continue during future lockdowns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acceptability and feasibility of a computer-based application ("app") to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to describe their alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption and dependence is linked to the extent that people experience need satisfaction while drinking alcohol in two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It can be difficult to ask people how much alcohol they consume, and effectively communicate about ways to reduce alcohol-related harm. [Extracted from the article]

Several initiatives have sought to increase the number of First Nations individuals with a higher degree in research (i.e., PhD or research masters)—in Australia and in similarly colonised countries. However, little has been written on day‐to‐day support structures and mechanisms that might help First Nations Australian candidates thrive in postgraduate research degrees and beyond. For sensitive research fields such as alcohol, emerging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers must grapple with topics which are stigmatising and in some instances associated with traumatic associations. There is also a lack of studies internationally that describe optimal support for First Nations students undertaking a higher degree by research with a primary focus on alcohol. Here we discuss what we have learned from the support offered through the Centre of Research Excellence in Indigenous Health and Alcohol—from the perspective of academic staff, students, trainees and early career researchers. We consider what may be generalisable lessons from this experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ('Indigenous') Australians experience a greater burden of disease from alcohol consumption than non-Indigenous peoples. Brief interventions can help people reduce their consumption, but people drinking at risky levels must first be detected. Valid screening tools (e.g., AUDIT-C) can help clinicians identify at-risk individuals, but clinicians also make unstructured assessments. We aimed to determine how frequently clinicians make unstructured risk assessments and use AUDIT-C with Indigenous Australian clients. We also aimed to determine the accuracy of unstructured drinking risk assessments relative to AUDIT-C screening. Finally, we aimed to explore whether client demographics influence unstructured drinking risk assessments. Methods: We performed cross-sectional analysis of a large clinical dataset provided by 22 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services in Australia. We examined instances where clients were screened with unstructured assessments and with AUDIT-C within the same two-monthly period. This aggregated data included 9884 observations. We compared the accuracy of unstructured risk assessments against AUDIT-C using multi-level sensitivity and specificity analysis. We used multi-level logistic regression to identify demographic factors that predict risk status in unstructured assessments while controlling for AUDIT-C score. Results: The primary variables were AUDIT-C score and unstructured drinking risk assessment; demographic covariates were client age and gender, and service remoteness. Clinicians made unstructured drinking risk assessments more frequently than they used AUDIT-C (17.11% and 10.85% of clinical sessions respectively). Where both measures were recorded within the same two-month period, AUDIT-C classified more clients as at risk from alcohol consumption than unstructured assessments. When using unstructured assessments, clinicians only identified approximately one third of clients drinking at risky levels based on their AUDIT-C score (sensitivity = 33.59% [95% CI 22.03, 47.52], specificity = 99.35% [95% CI 98.74, 99.67]). Controlling for AUDIT-C results and demographics (gender and service remoteness), clinicians using unstructured drinking risk assessments were more likely to classify older clients as being at risk from alcohol consumption than younger clients. Conclusions: Evidence-based screening tools like AUDIT-C can help clinicians ensure that Indigenous Australian clients (and their families and communities) who are at risk from alcohol consumption are better detected and supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disadvantage and transgenerational trauma contribute to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) Australians being more likely to experience adverse health consequences from alcohol and other drug use than non-Indigenous peoples. Addressing these health inequities requires local monitoring of alcohol and other drug use. While culturally appropriate methods for measuring drinking patterns among Indigenous Australians have been established, no similar methods are available for measuring other drug use patterns (amount and frequency of consumption). This paper describes a protocol for creating and validating a tablet-based survey for alcohol and other drugs ("The Drug Survey App"). Methods: The Drug Survey App will be co-designed with stakeholders including Indigenous Australian health professionals, addiction specialists, community leaders, and researchers. The App will allow participants to describe their drug use flexibly with an interactive, visual interface. The validity of estimated consumption patterns, and risk assessments will be tested against those made in clinical interviews conducted by Indigenous Australian health professionals. We will then trial the App as a population survey tool by using the App to determine the prevalence of substance use in two Indigenous communities. Discussion: The App could empower Indigenous Australian communities to conduct independent research that informs local prevention and treatment efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) Australians have identified alcohol consumption as an area of concern. Accurate screening tools are required to help detect and assist at‐risk drinkers, and to provide accurate data to policy makers. The Finnish method (determining drinking patterns based on the last two to four drinking occasions), has been proposed as a culturally appropriate and effective screening tool for detecting Indigenous Australians at risk from alcohol consumption. While it has been found to be valid and acceptable for use with Indigenous Australians, the Finnish method has not been compared to the three‐item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption (AUDIT‐C) which is currently recommended by the Australian government for use in Aboriginal community‐controlled health services. Methods: We compared the performance of the AUDIT‐C and Finnish method as screening tools for detecting harms experienced from alcohol in a representative, cross‐sectional, sample of Indigenous Australians. Results: AUDIT‐C was substantially faster for participants to complete than the Finnish method. Metrics derived from both the AUDIT‐C and Finnish method were similarly linked to the frequency of self‐reported International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision dependence symptoms and harms. Discussion and Conclusions: The AUDIT‐C is likely most appropriate for use in clinical settings due to its speed and ease of use. The Finnish method provides relatively detailed information about drinking and is better suited to population surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Measuring self‐reported alcohol use is challenging in any population, including when episodic drinking may be common. Drinking among Indigenous Australians has been shown to vary greatly within and between communities. However, most survey methods assume 'regular' patterns of drinking. National estimates have also been shown to underestimate alcohol use among this group. This paper describes drinking patterns in two representative community samples (urban and remote). Methods: Indigenous Australians (aged 16+ years) in two South Australian sites were recruited to complete the Grog Survey App. The App is a validated, interactive tablet‐based survey tool, designed to help Indigenous Australians describe their drinking. Drinking patterns were described using medians and interquartile ranges; gender and remoteness were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. Spearman correlations explored the relationship between drinking patterns and age. Logistic regressions tested if beverage or container preference differed by remoteness or gender. Results: Three‐quarters of participants (77.0%, n = 597/775) were current drinkers. Median standard drinks per occasion was 7.8 (78 g), 1.3 drinking occasions per month (median). Three‐quarters of current drinkers (73.7%) reported a period without drinking (median: 60 days). Remote drinkers were more likely to drink beer. Improvised containers were used by 40.5% of drinkers. Discussion and Conclusions: Episodic drinking with extended 'dry' periods and from non‐standard drinking containers was common in this representative sample of Indigenous Australians. The diversity of container use and beverage preference, by gender and remoteness, illustrates nuances in drinking patterns between communities. It shows the importance of community‐level data to inform local strategies addressing alcohol misuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Little is known about the prevalence of current alcohol dependence in Indigenous Australian communities. Here we identify the frequency of reported symptoms, estimate the prevalence and describe the correlates of current alcohol dependence. Methods: A representative sample of Indigenous Australians (16+ years) was recruited from an urban and remote community in South Australia. Data were collected between July and October 2019 via a tablet computer‐based application. Participants were likely dependent if they reported two or more dependence symptoms (ICD‐11; in the last 12 ‐months), weekly or more frequently. Chi‐square tests described the relationship between demographics, remoteness and alcohol dependence. Spearman correlations estimated the relationship between symptoms of dependence, consumption characteristics and demographics. Results: A total of 775 Indigenous Australians participated. The most frequently reported symptoms were prioritising alcohol over other things and loss of control. Overall, 2.2% were likely dependent on alcohol (n = 17/775). Prevalence did not vary by remoteness. Participants who drank more and more frequently tended to report more frequent symptoms of dependence. In the urban site, men tended to report more frequent symptoms of dependence than women. Age, income and schooling were not linked to dependence. Discussion and Conclusions: The prevalence of current alcohol dependence in this representative sample was similar to that of the general Australian and international estimates. Understanding risk factors for current alcohol dependence will be useful to inform the allocation of funding and support. Accurate estimates of the prevalence of current alcohol dependence are important to better identify specialist treatment needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have examined links between current alcohol dependence and specific harms among Indigenous Australians. We investigated these associations as well as help seeking for drinking, awareness of local treatments and recommendations to help family or friends cut down or stop drinking in two Indigenous communities. Methods: A representative sample of Indigenous Australians was surveyed in one urban and one remote community in South Australia. Data were collected via the Grog Survey App. Participants were dependent if they reported two or more symptoms of alcohol dependence (ICD-11). Pearson chi-square tests were used to describe relationships between employment by gender, and dependence by awareness of medicines and local treatment options. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to predict the odds of dependent drinkers experiencing harms and getting help for drinking, controlling for age, gender, schooling and income. Results: A total of 775 Indigenous Australians took part in the study. After controlling for confounders, dependent drinkers were nearly eight times more likely to report a harm and nearly three times more likely to get help for their drinking—compared with non-dependent drinkers. Participants recommended accessing local support from an Aboriginal alcohol and other drugs worker, or a detoxification/ rehabilitation service. Discussion and conclusions: More support and funding is needed for Indigenous Australians to ensure local treatment options for dependent drinkers are readily available, appropriate and accessible. Involvement of local Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander health professionals in delivery of care can help ensure that it is appropriate to an individual's culture and context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Unhealthy alcohol consumption is a key concern for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ('Indigenous') communities. It is important to identify and treat at‐risk drinkers, to prevent harms to physical or social wellbeing. We aimed to test whether training and support for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS) staff would increase rates of alcohol screening and brief intervention. Design Cluster randomized trial. Setting: Australia. Cases/Intervention/Measurements Twenty‐two ACCHSs that see at least 1000 clients per year and use Communicare as practice management software. The study included data on 70 419 clients, training, regular data feedback, collaborative support and funding for resources ($9000). Blinding was not used. The comparator was waiting‐list control (equal allocation). Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT‐C) screening and records of brief interventions were extracted from practice management software at 2‐monthly intervals. Observations described the clinical actions taken for clients over each 2‐month interval. The baseline period (28 August 2016–28 August 2017) was compared with the post‐implementation period (29 August 2017–28 August 2018). We used multi‐level logistic regression to test the hypotheses that clients attending a service receiving active support would be more likely to be screened with AUDIT‐C (primary outcome) or to receive a brief intervention (secondary outcome). Findings We observed an increase in the odds of screening with AUDIT‐C for both groups, but the increase was 5.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.31, 7.07] times larger at services receiving support. We found little evidence that the support programme increased the odds of a recorded brief intervention relative to control services (odds ratio = 2.06; 95% CI = 0.90, 4.69). Differences in baseline screening activity between treatment and control reduce the certainty of our findings. Conclusions: Providing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services with training and support can improve alcohol (AUDIT‐C) screening rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined acceptability and feasibility of a tablet application ("App") to record self-reported alcohol consumption among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Four communities (1 urban; 3 regional/remote) tested the App, with 246 adult participants (132 males, 114 females). The App collected (a) completion time; (b) participant feedback; (c) staff observations. Three research assistants were interviewed. Only six (1.4%) participants reported that the App was "hard" to use. Participants appeared to be engaged and to require minimal assistance; nearly half verbally reflected on their drinking or drinking of others. The App has potential for surveys, screening, or health promotion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alcohol affects Indigenous communities globally that have been colonised. These effects are physical, psychological, financial and cultural. This systematic review aims to describe the prevalence of current (12-month) alcohol dependence in Indigenous Peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, to identify how it is measured, and if tools have been validated in Indigenous communities. Such information can help inform estimates of likely treatment need. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was completed in six electronic databases for reports on current alcohol dependence (moderate to severe alcohol use disorder) published between 1 January 1989–9 July 2020. The following data were extracted: (1) the Indigenous population studied; country, (2) prevalence of dependence, (3) tools used to screen, assess or diagnose current dependence, (4) tools that have been validated in Indigenous populations to screen, assess or diagnose dependence, and (5) quality of the study, assessed using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: A total of 11 studies met eligibility criteria. Eight were cross-sectional surveys, one cohort study, and two were validation studies. Nine studies reported on the prevalence of current (12-month) alcohol dependence, and the range varied widely (3.8–33.3% [all participants], 3–32.8% [males only], 1.3–7.6% [females only]). Eight different tools were used and none were Indigenous-specific. Two tools have been validated in Indigenous (Native American) populations. Conclusion: Few studies report on prevalence of current alcohol dependence in community or household samples of Indigenous populations in these four countries. Prevalence varies according to sampling method and site (for example, specific community versus national). Prior work has generally not used tools validated in Indigenous contexts. Collaborations with local Indigenous people may help in the development of culturally appropriate ways of measuring alcohol dependence, incorporating local customs and values. Tools used need to be validated in Indigenous communities, or Indigenous-specific tools developed, validated and used. Prevalence findings can inform health promotion and treatment needs, including funding for primary health care and specialist treatment services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Grog Survey App is a visual and interactive tablet computer-based survey application. It has been shown to be an accurate and acceptable tool to help Indigenous Australians describe what they drink.Methods: The Grog Survey App was used to enquire into patterns of drinking in a stratified sample of Indigenous Australians in urban and remote/regional sites during testing of the App. The App asked about the last four drinking occasions in the past 12 months, including preferred alcohol types and containers; and symptoms of alcohol dependence, based on ICD-11 descriptions. Drinking patterns are presented here using medians and interquartile ranges, and the thresholds set out by the Australian National and Health and Medical Research Council guidelines. Patterns of consumption are compared by gender and remoteness, using Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare medians. Logistic regressions tested whether alcohol types and drinking containers varied by remoteness.Results: In this stratified sample most people either consumed nothing (21.7%), or consumed quantities which placed them at short- (95.6%) or long-term risk (47.8%) of harms. Drinkers in remote areas were more likely to drink beer, but less likely to drink pre-mixed spirits. 'Stubbies' and other beer glasses were popular in urban areas, compared with 'slabs' (cases of beer) in remote/regional areas. The use of improvised containers (i.e. empty juice bottles) did not vary by remoteness. Nearly one in six (15%) current drinkers reported experiencing at least two symptoms of alcohol dependence at least monthly. Average drinks per day was the consumption measure most highly correlated with each dependence symptom (r = 0.34-0.38).Conclusions: The App was able to capture a wide range of preferred alcohol types and containers, and demonstrate a diversity in how alcohol is consumed. This detail was captured in a relative brief survey delivered using an interactive and appealing tablet computer-based application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alcohol consumption among Indigenous Australians can involve a stop-start pattern of drinking, with consumption well above recommended guidelines on each occasion. Such intermittent drinking patterns can make screening for risky drinking difficult. This study evaluates the ability of several short alcohol screening tools, contained in the Grog Survey Application, to detect short- or long-term risky drinking as defined by Australian guidelines. Tested tools include a modification of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-Cm). Methods: Alcohol consumption was assessed in current drinkers in the past year (n = 184) using AUDIT-Cm and using the last four drinking occasions (Finnish method). Sensitivity and specificity were assessed relative to the Finnish method, for how AUDIT-Cm score (3 + for women, 4 + for men), and how subsets of AUDIT-Cm questions (AUDIT-1m and AUDIT-2m; and AUDIT-3mV alone) were able to determine short- or long-term risk from drinking. Responses to AUDIT-Cm were used to calculate the average standard drinks consumed per day, and the frequency at which more than four standard drinks were consumed on single occasions. Finally, shorter versions of the Finnish method (1, 2, or 3 occasions of drinking) were compared to the full Finnish method, by examining the percentage of variance retained by shorter versions. Results: AUDIT-Cm has a high sensitivity in detecting at-risk drinking compared with the Finnish method (sensitivity = 99%, specificity = 67%). The combination of AUDIT-1m and AUDIT-2m was able to classify the drinking risk status for all but four individuals in the same way as the Finnish method did. For the Finnish method, two drinking sessions to calculate drinks per drinking occasion, and four to calculate frequency resulted in nearly identical estimates to data on all four of the most recent drinking occasions (r2 = 0.997). Conclusions: The combination of AUDIT-1m and AUDIT-2m may offer advantages as a short screening tool, over AUDIT-3mV, in groups where intermittent and high per occasion drinking is common. As an alternative to the full Finnish method, the quantity consumed on the last two occasions and timing of the last four occasions may provide a practical short screening tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Addictions contribute significantly to the overall disease burden for Indigenous peoples of colonised countries. Mutual support groups are one of the most common addiction recovery resources, however their effectiveness for Indigenous peoples is unclear.Methods: A PRISMA-informed search was performed to retrieve empirical studies on addiction recovery mutual support groups for Indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States of America and Hawaii. Databases searched were: MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, SocINDEX, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, Scopus and UlrichsWeb, Informit Collections, Australian Indigenous HealthInfonet and Lowitja Institute electronic databases. Exclusion criteria were: 1) not an Indigenous focus; 2) not an addiction focus (i.e. including alcohol, other drug, gambling); 3) not a mutual support group focus; 4) not an original study; 5) not a complete study; 6) not published in English language.Results: Four studies published between 2001 and 2006 met review criteria. All studies were conducted in the United States of America with Native American Indian peoples (n = 1600) and featured Alcoholics Anonymous only. Study designs were: a retrospective analysis of survey data, a cross-sectional survey report, a clinical case study and an ethnographic study. Methodological differences precluded meaningful translation of results.Conclusion: There is a lack of empirical knowledge on the acceptability and outcomes of addiction recovery mutual support groups for Indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States of America and Hawaii. This review suggests recommendations for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]