Stinence via urinalysis), and provision of an incentive quickly soon after its detection (Petry, 2000).

Stinence via urinalysis), and provision of an incentive quickly soon after its detection (Petry, 2000). Meta-analytic reviews of CM note its robust, dependable therapeutic effects when implemented in addiction remedy settings (Griffith et al., 2000; Lussier et al., 2006; Prendergast et al., 2006). Quite a few empiricallysupported applications are readily available to community treatment settings, including opioid treatment programs (OTPs) wherein agonist medication is paired with counseling and also other services in maintenance therapy for opiate dependence. Offered CM applications include: 1) privilege-based (Stitzer et al., 1977), where conveniences like take-home medication doses or preferred dosing occasions earned, 2) stepped-care (Brooner et al., 2004), where reduced clinic specifications are gained, 3) voucher-based (Higgins et al., 1993), with vouchers for goods/services awarded, four) prize-based (Petry et al., 2000), with draws for prize products given, 5) socially-based (Lash et al., 2007), where status tokens or public recognition reinforce identified milestones, and 6) employment-based, with job prospects at a `therapeutic workplace’ (Silverman et al., 2002) reinforcing abstinence. Despite such alternatives, CM implementation remains restricted, even among clinics affiliated with NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network [CTN; (Roman et al., 2010)]. A recent review suggests guidance by implementation science theories may facilitate far more productive CM dissemination (Hartzler et al., 2012). A hallmark theory is Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion Theory, a widely-cited and extensive theoretical framework based on decades of cross-disciplinary study of innovation adoption. Diffusion theory outlines processes whereby innovations are adopted by members of a social technique and individual qualities that impact innovation receptivity. As for prior applications to addiction therapy, diffusion theory has identified clinic characteristics predicting naltrexone PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21079607 adoption (Oser Roman, 2008). It also is commonly referenced in numerous critiques (Damschroder Hildegorn, 2011; Glasner-Edwards et al., 2010; Manuel et al., 2011) and interpretation of empirical findings regarding innovation adoption (Amodeo et al., 2010; Baer et al., 2009; Hartzler et al., 2012; Roman et al., 2010). In diffusion theory, Rogers (2003) differentiates two processes whereby a social program arrives at a selection about irrespective of whether or to not adopt a brand new practice. In a collective innovation choice, men and women accept or reject an innovation en route to a consensus-based selection. In contrast, an authority innovation selection entails acceptance or rejection of an innovation by a person (or subset of persons) with higher status or energy. The latter method additional accurately portrays the pragmatism inherent in innovation adoption decisions at most OTPs, highlighting an influential role of executive leadership that merits scientific consideration. In accordance with diffusion theory, executives could possibly be categorized into 5 mutually-exclusive categories of innovativeness: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Table 1 outlines individual traits related with each category, as outlined by Rogers (2003). Efforts to categorize executive innovativeness based on such private traits is well-suited to ON123300 web qualitative research strategies, which are under-represented in addiction literature (Rhodes et al., 2010). Such approaches reflect a selection of elicitation solutions, of which two examples would be the et.