Báa nnilah is a chronic illness self‐management program designed by and for the Apsáalooke (Crow) community. Arising from a collaboration between an Indigenous nonprofit organization and a university‐based research team, Báa nnilah's development, implementation, and evaluation have been influenced by both Indigenous and Western research paradigms (WRPs). Báa nnilah was evaluated using a randomized wait‐list control group design. In a WRP, contamination, or intervention information shared by the intervention group with the control group, is actively discouraged as it makes ascertaining causality difficult, if not impossible. This approach is not consonant with Apsáalooke cultural values that include the encouragement of sharing helpful information with others, supporting an Indigenous research paradigm's (IRP) goal of benefiting the community. The purpose of this paper is to address contamination and sharing as an area of tension between WRP and IRP. We describe how the concepts of contamination and sharing within Báa nnilah's implementation and evaluation are interpreted differently when viewed from these contrasting paradigms, and set forth a call for greater exploration of Indigenous research approaches for developing, implementing, and evaluating intervention programs in Indigenous communities. (Improving Chronic Illness Management with the Apsáalooke Nation: The Báa nnilah Project.: NCT03036189), ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03036189).

Chronic illness self-management best practices include goal-setting as an important tool for developing better self-management habits and are often included as elements of chronic disease self-management interventions. However, the goal theory that many of these tools employ relies on individualistic principles of self-efficacy that are not culturally consonant within many Indigenous communities. During the creation of the [blinded] program, a chronic illness management intervention, we developed a goal-setting tool specific to the [blinded] Nation. Emerging from an Indigenous paradigm and methodology, Counting Coup serves as a goal-setting tool that promotes the [blinded] culture, connects individuals with their ancestors, and focuses on achievement of goals within relationships. Future research and practice should be grounded in the historical and cultural contexts of their communities when designing and implementing goal-setting tools. Limitations to Counting Coup as a goal-setting tool include the need for program facilitators to have a relationship with participants due to Counting Coup’s foundation in relational accountability and that the environmental context may pose difficulties for participants in moving towards behavior change.