Bout CM: “We had been purchased by a major holding organization, and I get the perception they may be money-driven, despite the fact that a great deal of staff here are not. We PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21081558 attempt to discover balance in between good care for sufferers and satisfying the bottom line at the very same time, but expense could be an obstacle for CM here.” “It seems like a patient could abuse the [CM] method if they figured out how you can… and a few of your counselors could be concerned that it would develop competition amongst the patients.” Clinic Executive as Laggard At a single clinic, no implementation or pending adoption decisions was reported. The clinic primarily served immigrants of a certain ethnic group, with robust executive commitment to providing culturally-competent care to this population. A byproduct of this focus seemed to be restricted familiarity of therapy practices like CM for which broader patient populations are commonly involved in empirical validation. Upon recognizing that following federal and state regulations regarding access to take-home medications buy YL0919 represent a de facto CM application, employees voiced support for familiar practices but reticence toward more novel uses of CM: “It’s like that saying…`give a man a fish he’s only gonna consume once. But in the event you teach him to fish he can eat to get a lifetime.’ The monetary incentives look like `I’m just gonna provide you with a fish.’ But finding take-home doses is like `I’m gonna teach you tips on how to fish’.” “I consider that will be one of the worst items someone could ever do, mixing monetary incentives in with drug addiction. Personally, I’d stick together with the conventional way we do things mainly because if I am just giving you material stuff for clean UAs, it really is like I am rewarding you instead of you rewarding oneself.” At a last clinic, no CM implementation or imminent adoption choices had been reported. The executive was very integrated into its day-to-day practices, but often highlighted fiscal concerns over challenges concerning high quality of care. Consequently, empirically-validated practices like CM appeared under-valued. Employees saw small utility within the use of CM, even as applied to state and federal recommendations governing access to take-home medication doses. A rather sturdy reluctance toward good reinforcement of clients of any sort was a consistent theme: “I do not assume it is a motivator of any sort with our clientele, to provide a voucher will not be a motivator at all. And [take-home doses] are of quite minimal value also…I imply, the drug dealer will give you those.” “Any sort of economic incentive, they’re gonna uncover a way to sell that. So I think any rewards are probably just enabling. As opposed to all that, I’d push to view what they value…you realize, push for individual duty and just how much do they worth that.”NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptDiscussionAs signifies of investigating influences of executive innovativeness on CM implementation by neighborhood OTPs, sixteen geographically-diverse U.S. clinics have been visited. At every single visit, an ethnographic interviewing method was employed with its executive director from whichInt J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; readily available in PMC 2014 July 01.Hartzler and RabunPageimpressions have been later made use of for classification into one of 5 adopter categories noted in Rogers’ (2003) diffusion theory. The executive, also as a clinical supervisor and two clinicians, also participated in individual semi-structured interviews wherein they described training/exposure to CM and commented on clinic att.