Stinence by way of urinalysis), and provision of an incentive quickly following its detection (Petry, 2000). Meta-analytic critiques of CM note its robust, reliable therapeutic effects when implemented in addiction therapy settings (Griffith et al., 2000; Lussier et al., 2006; Prendergast et al., 2006). Numerous empiricallysupported applications are out there to neighborhood remedy settings, like opioid remedy programs (OTPs) wherein agonist medication is paired with counseling as well as other services in upkeep therapy for opiate dependence. Readily available CM applications involve: 1) privilege-based (Stitzer et al., 1977), where conveniences like take-home medication doses or preferred dosing times earned, two) stepped-care (Brooner et al., 2004), exactly where decreased clinic needs are gained, 3) voucher-based (Higgins et al., 1993), with vouchers for goods/services awarded, 4) 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 choices, CM implementation remains limited, even among clinics affiliated with NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network [CTN; (Roman et al., 2010)]. A current assessment suggests guidance by implementation science theories may facilitate a lot more powerful 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 technique and individual characteristics that have an effect on 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). In addition, it is frequently referenced in numerous evaluations (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 choice about regardless of whether or not to adopt a brand new practice. In a collective innovation decision, folks accept or reject an innovation en route to a consensus-based decision. In contrast, an authority innovation choice entails acceptance or rejection of an innovation by an individual (or subset of persons) with higher status or energy. The latter method a lot more accurately portrays the pragmatism inherent in innovation adoption choices at most OTPs, highlighting an influential part of executive leadership that merits scientific attention. In line with diffusion theory, executives may be categorized into five mutually-exclusive categories of innovativeness: innovators, early adopters, early Phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate majority, late majority, and laggards. Table 1 outlines personal traits related with each and every category, as outlined by Rogers (2003). Efforts to categorize executive innovativeness according to such personal characteristics is well-suited to qualitative study strategies, that are under-represented in addiction literature (Rhodes et al., 2010). Such techniques reflect a selection of elicitation methods, of which two examples would be the et.