Stinence through urinalysis), and provision of an incentive quickly soon after its detection (Petry, 2000). Meta-analytic critiques 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). Many empiricallysupported applications are available to neighborhood remedy settings, including opioid treatment programs (OTPs) wherein agonist medication is paired with counseling along with other solutions in upkeep therapy for opiate dependence. Available CM applications consist of: 1) privilege-based (Stitzer et al., 1977), exactly where conveniences like take-home medication doses or preferred dosing times earned, two) stepped-care (Brooner et al., 2004), where lowered 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 provided, 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. In spite of such possibilities, CM implementation remains limited, even amongst clinics affiliated with NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network [CTN; (Roman et al., 2010)]. A recent overview suggests guidance by implementation science theories could 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 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 private characteristics that influence innovation receptivity. As for prior applications to addiction remedy, 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 usually referenced in various testimonials (Damschroder Hildegorn, 2011; Glasner-Edwards et al., 2010; Manuel et al., 2011) and interpretation of empirical findings concerning 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 technique arrives at a selection about no matter whether or not to adopt a brand new practice. In a collective innovation choice, men and women accept or reject an innovation en route to a consensus-based choice. In contrast, an authority innovation selection entails acceptance or rejection of an innovation by an individual (or subset of persons) with greater status or energy. The latter approach far more accurately portrays the pragmatism inherent in innovation adoption decisions at most OTPs, highlighting an influential part of executive leadership that merits Scopoletin scientific interest. As outlined by diffusion theory, executives might be categorized into five mutually-exclusive categories of innovativeness: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Table 1 outlines personal traits connected with every single category, as outlined by Rogers (2003). Efforts to categorize executive innovativeness based on such individual traits is well-suited to qualitative analysis approaches, which are under-represented in addiction literature (Rhodes et al., 2010). Such strategies reflect a array of elicitation techniques, of which two examples would be the et.