Elsevier

Addictive Behaviors

Volume 27, Issue 6, November–December 2002, Pages 989-993
Addictive Behaviors

Diffusion of preventive innovations

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00300-3Get rights and content

Abstract

The present paper draws on the diffusion of innovations model to derive a series of strategies for speeding up the spread and implementation of new ideas in preventing addiction. Preventive innovations usually require an action at one point in time in order to avoid an unwanted future condition. Hence, preventive innovations diffuse rather slowly, in part due to delayed rewards from adoption. Here we suggest five strategies, based on diffusion theory, for speeding up the diffusion of preventive innovations.

Introduction

Prevention is generally much cheaper than treatment. This statement is certainly true in the field of addictions. Then why do we not devote greater attention and resources to the prevention of addictions? How could we more effectively diffuse and implement new ideas in addiction prevention, both to professional addiction staff and to their clients?

In order to answer this question, we draw on the theory of the diffusion of innovations, a framework that has been applied to various programs in health prevention, including drug addiction Ferrence, 2001, Martin et al., 1998.

Section snippets

The diffusion model

Diffusion is the process through which (1) an innovation (2) is communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of a social system (Rogers, 1995). Diffusion is a special type of communication concerned with the spread of messages that are perceived as dealing with new ideas, and necessarily represent a certain degree of uncertainty to an individual or organization. The four main elements in the diffusion of new ideas are (1) innovation, (2) communication channels, (3)

Preventive innovations

Preventive innovations are new ideas that require action at one point in time in order to avoid unwanted consequences at some future time (Rogers, 1995). The rewards to the individual from adopting a preventive innovation are often delayed in time, are relatively intangible, and the unwanted consequence may not occur anyway. Thus, preventive innovations are relatively low in relative advantage, compared to nonpreventive innovations. Past research shows that perceived relative advantage is the

Strategies for diffusing preventive innovations

What strategies could be used to speed up the diffusion and use of preventive innovations?

  • 1.

    Change the perceived attributes of preventive innovations. As mentioned previously, the relative advantage of a preventive innovation needs to be stressed (Lock & Kaner, 2000).

  • 2.

    Utilize champions to promote preventive innovations. A champion is an individual who devotes his/her personal influence to encourage adoption of an innovation. Goodman and Steckler (1989) found that champions for health ideas were

Discussion

Under ordinary conditions, the diffusion process for an innovation, even one with considerable relative advantage, requires a lengthy time period. Understanding the diffusion process (on the basis of the some 6200 diffusion studies completed to date) can help suggest strategies, such as those above, to speed up the diffusion process. Unfortunately, preventive innovations (like most new ideas in the addiction field) generally diffuse relatively slowly, even when promising diffusion strategies

References (14)

  • D.S Keller et al.

    Technology transfer of network therapy to community-based addictions counselors

    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

    (1999)
  • S.T Ennett et al.

    How effective is drug abuse resistance education: a meta-analysis of Project D.A.R.E. outcome evaluations

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1994)
  • J.W Farquahar et al.

    Effects of communitywide education on cardiovascular disease risk factors: the Stanford five-city project

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1990)
  • R Ferrence

    Diffusion theory and drug use

    Addiction

    (2001)
  • R.M Goodman et al.

    A model for the institutionalization of health promotion programs

    Family and Community Health

    (1989)
  • E.F Kaner et al.

    A RCT of three training and support strategies to encourage implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners

    British Journal of General Practice

    (1999)
  • C.A Lock et al.

    Use of marketing to disseminate brief alcohol intervention to general practitioners: promoting health care interventions to health promoters

    Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice

    (2000)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (678)

View all citing articles on Scopus

Paper presented at the Addictions 2002 Conference on Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention in the Community, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, September 15–17, 2002.

View full text