Cited by 40Health Policy Implementation ScienceSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Developing the tools of implementation science in substance use disorders treatment: Applications of the consolidated framework for implementation research.

Open access
Sorensen, James L., Kosten, Thomas·2011·Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

The implementation of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) and practices (EBPs) depends on both top-down and bottom-up responsibilities. Many articles in this special section on Implementation Science in Substance Use Disorders address the interaction between these two approaches when implementing new substance use disorder (SUD) treatments. Generally the articles place this interaction within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a relatively new and comprehensive synthesis of theories and conceptualizations of the components needed for successful implementation strategies. The range of SUD treatments covered includes well-established behavioral interventions, such as screening and brief interventions for alcohol, as well as new pharmacotherapies, such as buprenorphine for opiates. One contribution uses the CFIR to review continuing care interventions and self-help groups that can follow-up after more intensive clinical care. External and internal pressures for change drive implementation. The successful EBT/EBP implementations reviewed in these articles recognized these potential change drivers in designing their strategy for introducing the EBT/EBP, and they modified aspects of the EBT/EBP to satisfy many of these drivers. The CFIR model has limitations, as do the contributions to this special section. The implementation science field is new and developing rapidly, and many of the EBTs and EBPs were developed and tested through controlled studies evaluating the efficacy of interventions under controlled conditions, rather than examining their performance in the broader landscape of addiction treatment programs. These limitations may also be considered as boundary conditions to be explored in further research, implementation, and development of the next edition of the CFIR.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0022765

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The updated CFIR construct names and definitions were revised to make the framework more applicable across a range of innovations and settings.

    “Construct names and definitions were updated in response to recommendations to make the framework more applicable across a range of innovations and settings [30–35].”

    From The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback (2022) · cites this paper as [34]

    In IV. Concluding Comments, “Much to be Learned” (page unavailable), the paper says CFIR may not sufficiently reflect the diversity of treatments and settings and calls for exploring these limitations in a future edition. It does not report that construct names or definitions were updated, or that such updates were made in response to recommendations. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sorensen, J. L., & Kosten, T.
Affiliations
  • San Francisco General Hospital (US)
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
Venue
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Published
2011-06
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
262-268
ISSN
  • 0893-164X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1501
OpenAlex
W2085412492
Cited by
40
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (P50DA09253, U10DA015815, R01DA020781, R21DA020369; T32DA07250)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA18197; K05DA0454; R01DA25223)
  • VHA
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
implementation science, substance use disorders treatment, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, evidence-based treatment, evidence-based practice, drivers of change, self-help groups, buprenorphine, opioid use disorder, addiction treatment programs
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Health Services, Psychotherapy, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review