Lost in translation? Moving contingency management and cognitive behavioral therapy into clinical practice

In the treatment of addictions, the gap between the availability of evidence-based therapies and their limited implementation in practice has not yet been bridged. Two empirically validated behavioral therapies, contingency management (CM) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), exemplify this challenge. Both have a relatively strong level of empirical support but each has weak and uneven adoption in clinical practice. This review highlights examples of how barriers to their implementation in practice have been addressed systematically, using the Stage Model of Behavioral Therapies Development as an organizing framework. For CM, barriers such as cost and ideology have been addressed through the development of lower-cost and other adaptations to make it more community friendly. For CBT, barriers such as relative complexity, lack of trained providers, and need for supervision have been addressed via conversion to standardized computer-assisted versions that can serve as clinician extenders. Although these and other modifications have rendered both interventions more disseminable, diffusion of innovation remains a complex, often unpredictable process. The existing specialty addiction-treatment system may require significant reforms to fully implement CBT and CM, particularly greater focus on definable treatment goals and performance-based outcomes.