Stinence via urinalysis), and provision of an incentive soon following its detection (Petry, 2000). Meta-analytic

Stinence via urinalysis), and provision of an incentive soon following its detection (Petry, 2000). Meta-analytic reviews of CM note its robust, trustworthy therapeutic effects when implemented in addiction remedy settings (Griffith et al., 2000; Lussier et al., 2006; Prendergast et al., 2006). Various empiricallysupported applications are obtainable to purchase Puromycin (Dihydrochloride) community treatment settings, such as opioid treatment programs (OTPs) wherein agonist medication is paired with counseling as well as other services in maintenance therapy for opiate dependence. Accessible CM applications include things like: 1) privilege-based (Stitzer et al., 1977), exactly where conveniences like take-home medication doses or preferred dosing times earned, 2) stepped-care (Brooner et al., 2004), exactly 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 items offered, 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. Regardless of such options, CM implementation remains restricted, even among clinics affiliated with NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network [CTN; (Roman et al., 2010)]. A recent assessment suggests guidance by implementation science theories may possibly facilitate additional effective CM dissemination (Hartzler et al., 2012). A hallmark theory is Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion Theory, a widely-cited and complete 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 program and private characteristics that affect innovation receptivity. As for prior applications to addiction therapy, diffusion theory has identified clinic traits predicting naltrexone PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21079607 adoption (Oser Roman, 2008). It also is typically referenced in various testimonials (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 method arrives at a decision about whether or not or not to adopt a new practice. In a collective innovation decision, people accept or reject an innovation en route to a consensus-based choice. In contrast, an authority innovation decision involves acceptance or rejection of an innovation by an individual (or subset of persons) with greater status or power. The latter process far more accurately portrays the pragmatism inherent in innovation adoption decisions at most OTPs, highlighting an influential part of executive leadership that merits scientific focus. Based on diffusion theory, executives may be categorized into 5 mutually-exclusive categories of innovativeness: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Table 1 outlines individual characteristics related with each and every category, as outlined by Rogers (2003). Efforts to categorize executive innovativeness based on such personal characteristics is well-suited to qualitative research approaches, that are under-represented in addiction literature (Rhodes et al., 2010). Such solutions reflect a selection of elicitation solutions, of which two examples would be the et.