Dissemination Activities: a Critical new Role for Substance Abuse Treatment Organizations

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act calls for integration of substance abuse treatment into medical care via medical homes and continuing specialty care. For this integration to occur in the substance abuse treatment field, substantial sharing and dissemination of information by treatment providers is required. This study explored the determinants of organizational activities directed at disseminating evidence-based practices (EBP) undertaken by 193 community treatment programs who are members of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network. Using factor analysis, the research identified two generic categories reflecting different motivations for dissemination activities, and explored both treatment center leadership and organizational characteristics as determinants of these different types of dissemination activities. Organizational characteristics predicting treatment center dissemination activities included size, previous involvement in research protocols, linkages with other providers, and having non-profit status. The treatment center leader's membership in professional organizations was also a significant determinant. Organization variables account for a larger portion of the variance in treatment center dissemination activities. The results suggest that the willingness of treatment providers to help disseminate EBPs within the industry may be heavily influenced through shared network connections with other treatment organizations.

Implementation of Electronic Health Records and Entrepreneurial Strategic Orientation in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Organizations

“…The requirements for meaningful use of EHRs will continue to increase in scope and complexity in the future, suggesting that policies and practices embedded in training and educational efforts that encourage and support such strategic approaches with SUD treatment organizations may be essential for the closer integration of SUD treatment with primary medical care. As the full implications of the Affordable Care Act become apparent, the smaller organizations that dominate the structure of the SUD treatment industry may experience extreme institutional and regulatory pressures not only to implement EHRs but also to undertake other nontraditional activities that satisfy regulatory demands (Buck, 2011;Fields et al, 2014). Adopting more entrepreneurial strategic perspectives may be a necessary step for SUD treatment centers to anticipate and meet the challenges of the complex factors arising from new patients with resources available for behavioral health care through implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Buck, 2011).…”

“…Information exchange and knowledge dissemination represented by implementation of EHRs may be new activities for SUD treatment providers (Fields et al, 2014;Hingson et al, 2012;Madras et al, 2009). Besides better integrating SUD treatment with the primary health care system, implementation of EHRs may improve SUD treatment organizations' competitive position by facilitating information exchange, supporting better clinical decision making, and enhancing fee-for-service billing capabilities (Buck, 2011;Ghitza et al, 2011;Molfenter et al, 2012).…”

Exploring Diversification as A Management Strategy in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Organizations

“…It is of course possible that diversification of referral sources had been recently adopted by many of the SUD organizations studied because more limited referral sources have not been yielding the desired number of patients. Strategic choices such as diversification may emphasize areas needing attention due to relative weakness (Fields, Blum, & Roman, 2014). Finally, it was surprising that higher levels of funding diversification were not related to higher average levels of comprehensive care or utilization of MAT.…”

Influence networks among substance abuse treatment clinics: implications for the dissemination of innovations

“…An organization adopting an innovation is a more complex process than an individual adopting an innovation [16][17][18], and a type of innovation may also influence the adoption process [19]. Many ways of differentiating types of innovations have been offered since Schumpeter's original classification [20].…”