There were three main sub-themes that were

brought up by participants around CM pertaining to the relative importance of effectiveness of CM as an intervention. These were as follows (see Table 2.4 for examples): 1. A pragmatic approach that linked in with the discussions around having CM as part of a ‘tool kit’ of interventions. This could be summarised as ‘if it works, use it.’ This stance was primarily taken by the more experienced clinicians. The aims of this study were to explore systematically the attitudes, concerns and opinions Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Library supplier of staff and service users about the use of CM in publicly funded substance misuse services and to identify the key areas that may be influential in terms of implementation and outcome. Below we summarise the findings and examine specifically what this study adds to the literature in terms of: 1. How CM may fit within the context of substance misuse programmes.

The causes of addictions are well recognised to be a complex interaction of biological, social and psychological factors and from a health perspective can be considered within a chronic disease model (McLellan et al., 2000), requiring a collaborative approach between professional and patient if long-term, sustained positive outcomes are to be achieved. Many substance misuse services in developed countries work within a multi-disciplinary, community treatment model. Consequently, the way that new interventions Selleck DAPT are viewed by clinicians (in their role as individual citizen as well as practitioner), and the collective philosophy of a treatment service will have a substantial impact on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of their implementation and uptake (Benishek et al., 2010, Cameron and Ritter, 2007, Kirby et al., 2006 and McGovern et al., 2004). This study highlighted the issues most consistently discussed about the use of CM by service users (both current and past) and health professionals. The 15 different themes are concerns that will need to be considered Bay 11-7085 in any evaluation of effectiveness of CM implementation

within different clinical settings, and across different health care systems. Whilst the evidence base from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the role of CM in substance misuse programmes is compelling (Dutra et al., 2008, NIHCE, 2007 and Pilling et al., 2007) the uptake into clinical practice has been less good (Kirby et al., 2006 and Petry, 2006). The results of this study suggest that the overall aims of a treatment programme (e.g., whether the aim is for harm minimisation or abstinence) may be a significant factor in how a single intervention is viewed and the likelihood of its implementation. The methodology of an RCT, even of a complex intervention, specifically attempts to insulate the intervention under examination, from such contextual factors.