Stinence via urinalysis), and provision of an incentive quickly after its detection (Petry, 2000). Meta-analytic reviews of CM note its robust, reliable 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 neighborhood treatment settings, including opioid treatment programs (OTPs) wherein agonist medication is paired with counseling and other services in maintenance therapy for opiate dependence. Offered CM applications consist of: 1) privilege-based (Stitzer et al., 1977), where conveniences like take-home medication doses or preferred dosing instances earned, two) stepped-care (Brooner et al., 2004), where decreased 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 provided, five) 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 options, CM implementation remains limited, even among clinics affiliated with NIDA’s Clinical Trials Network [CTN; (Roman et al., 2010)]. A current review SU1498 biological activity suggests guidance by implementation science theories may possibly facilitate additional 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 method and private qualities that influence innovation receptivity. As for prior applications to addiction treatment, diffusion theory has identified clinic qualities predicting naltrexone PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21079607 adoption (Oser Roman, 2008). Additionally, it is usually referenced in a number of 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 technique arrives at a choice about whether or not or not to adopt a new practice. Inside a collective innovation choice, individuals accept or reject an innovation en route to a consensus-based decision. In contrast, an authority innovation decision includes acceptance or rejection of an innovation by a person (or subset of persons) with greater status or power. The latter method a lot more accurately portrays the pragmatism inherent in innovation adoption decisions at most OTPs, highlighting an influential part of executive leadership that merits scientific attention. As outlined by diffusion theory, executives could possibly be categorized into five mutually-exclusive categories of innovativeness: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Table 1 outlines personal qualities related with every category, as outlined by Rogers (2003). Efforts to categorize executive innovativeness in line with such private characteristics is well-suited to qualitative study techniques, that are under-represented in addiction literature (Rhodes et al., 2010). Such approaches reflect a array of elicitation solutions, of which two examples would be the et.