Stinence by way of urinalysis), and provision of an incentive quickly soon after its detection (Petry, 2000). Meta-analytic evaluations of CM note its robust, trustworthy Q-VD-OPh therapeutic effects when implemented in addiction remedy settings (Griffith et al., 2000; Lussier et al., 2006; Prendergast et al., 2006). Numerous empiricallysupported applications are available to community remedy settings, such as opioid remedy applications (OTPs) wherein agonist medication is paired with counseling along with other solutions in upkeep therapy for opiate dependence. Offered CM applications incorporate: 1) privilege-based (Stitzer et al., 1977), where conveniences like take-home medication doses or preferred dosing occasions earned, two) stepped-care (Brooner et al., 2004), where reduced clinic needs 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, five) socially-based (Lash et al., 2007), exactly where status tokens or public recognition reinforce identified milestones, and six) employment-based, with job prospects at a `therapeutic workplace’ (Silverman et al., 2002) reinforcing abstinence. Regardless of such solutions, CM implementation remains restricted, even among clinics affiliated with NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network [CTN; (Roman et al., 2010)]. A current review suggests guidance by implementation science theories might facilitate more successful CM dissemination (Hartzler et al., 2012). A hallmark theory is Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion Theory, a widely-cited and extensive theoretical framework primarily based on decades of cross-disciplinary study of innovation adoption. Diffusion theory outlines processes whereby innovations are adopted by members of a social system and personal traits that influence innovation receptivity. As for prior applications to addiction therapy, diffusion theory has identified clinic qualities predicting naltrexone PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21079607 adoption (Oser Roman, 2008). It also is usually referenced in several 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 method arrives at a selection about irrespective of whether or to not adopt a brand new practice. Within a collective innovation selection, folks accept or reject an innovation en route to a consensus-based selection. In contrast, an authority innovation decision includes acceptance or rejection of an innovation by an individual (or subset of persons) with higher status or energy. The latter course of action additional accurately portrays the pragmatism inherent in innovation adoption decisions at most OTPs, highlighting an influential part of executive leadership that merits scientific interest. According to 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 personal qualities linked with each category, as outlined by Rogers (2003). Efforts to categorize executive innovativeness based on such private qualities is well-suited to qualitative analysis strategies, that are under-represented in addiction literature (Rhodes et al., 2010). Such strategies reflect a selection of elicitation solutions, of which two examples would be the et.
