Advertisement

Grounded Theory and Backward Mapping: Exploring the Implementation Context for Wraparound

  • Janet S. WalkerEmail author
  • Nancy Koroloff
Regular Article

Abstract

Within children’s mental health, there is an increasing demand for wider implementation of wraparound and other interventions that can provide comprehensive, individualized, family-driven care. Unfortunately, implementation has proven difficult because these approaches do not necessarily flourish within traditionally organized agencies and systems. This has highlighted the need for information about how mental health agencies and systems must evolve if they are to provide a hospitable implementation environment for these interventions. A first step in developing this information is through research that advances conceptual and theoretical understanding of the impact of contextual factors on implementation. At the same time, there is an immediate need for practical information to guide decision making and policy development in settings where implementation is being undertaken. This article describes a study of wraparound implementation that used a combination of qualitative strategies to meet both of these needs simultaneously. It is argued that these strategies are particularly well suited to the study of emerging practices that reflect—and help drive—transformation in mental health systems.

Keywords

implementation wraparound transformation qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted with funding from the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), United States Department of Education, and the Center for Mental Health Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (NIDRR grant number H133B990025). The content does not necessarily represent the views or policies of the funding agencies. The authors wish to thank the research participants for the insights offered during the interviews and feedback sessions described in this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Stroul BA, Friedman RM. A System of Care for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center; 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deegan PE. Recovery: the lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. 1988;11(4):11–19.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns BJ. A call for a mental health services research agenda for youth with serious emotional disturbance. Mental Health Services Research. 1999;1(1):5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Medicine. Improving the Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance-Use Conditions. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. DHHS Pub. No. SMA 96-3098. Rockville, MD: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health; 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America: Final Report. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD: New Freedom Commission on Mental Health; 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosencheck R. Organizational process: a missing link between research and practice. Psychiatric Services. 2001;52(12):1607–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fixsen D, Naoom SF, Balase KA, et al. Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte. Florida Mental Health Institute. The National Implementation Research Network; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoagwood K, Burns BJ, Weisz JR. A profitable conjunction: from science to service in children’s mental health. In: Burns BJ, Hoagwood K, eds. Community Treatment for Youth: Evidence-Based Interventions for Severe Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mihalic S, Fagan A, Irwin K, et al. Blueprints for Violence Prevention. DOJ Pub. No. NCJ 204274. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor L, Nelson P, Adelman H. Scaling-up reforms across a school district. Reading and Writing Quarterly. 1999;15(4):303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walker JS, Bruns EJ, Rast J, et al. Phases and Activities of the Wraparound Process. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health, Portland State University; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faw L. The state wraparound survey. In: Burns BJ, Goldman SK, eds. Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health, 1998 Series: Volume IV. Promising Practices in Wraparound for Children with Severe Emotional Disorders and their Families. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research; 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oregon Department of Human Services. AMH Practices: Approved and Under Review. Office of Addiction and Mental Health Services, 2007. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/mentalhealth/ebp/practices.shtml accessed on January 29, 2007.
  15. 15.
    Bruns EJ, Walker JS, Adams J, et al. Ten Principles of the Wraparound Process. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health, Portland State University; 2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burns BJ, Goldman SK. Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health, 1998 Series: Volume IV. Promising Practices in Wraparound for Children with Severe Emotional Disorders and their Families. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research; 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walker JS, Bruns EJ. The wraparound process: individualized, community-based care for children and adolescents with intensive needs. In: Rosenberg J, Rosenberg S, eds. Community Mental Health: Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walker JS, Schutte KM. Quality and individualization in Wraparound planning. Journal of Child & Family Studies. 2005;14(2):251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burchard JD, Bruns EJ, Burchard SN. The wraparound approach. In: Burns BJ, Hoagwood K, eds. Community Treatment for Youth: Evidence-Based Interventions for Severe Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farmer EMZ. Issues confronting effective services in systems of care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2000;22(8):627–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clark HB, Lee B, Prange ME, et al. Children lost within the foster care system: can wraparound service strategies improve placement outcomes? Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1996;5(1):39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malekoff A. Bureaucratic barriers to service delivery, administrative advocacy, and Mother Goose. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services. 2000;81(3):304–314.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGinty K, McCammon SL, Koeppen VP. The complexities of implementing the wraparound approach to service provision: a view from the field. Journal of Family Social Work. 2001;5(3):95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walker JS, Koroloff N, Schutte K. Implementing High-Quality Collaborative Individualized Service/Support Planning: Necessary Conditions. Portland OR: Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health; 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Corbin J, Strauss A. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 1990;13(1):3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walker D, Myrick F. Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative Health Research. 2006;16(4):547–559.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Charmaz K. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications; 2000.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Elmore RF. Backward mapping: implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly. 1980;94(4):601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dunst CJ, Trivette CM, Starnes AL, et al. Building and Evaluating Family Support Initiatives. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 1993.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Friedman RM. A conceptual framework for developing and implementing effective policy in children’s mental health. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2003;11(1):11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fiorino DJ. Strategies for regulatory reform: forward compared to backward mapping. Policy Studies Journal. 1977;25(2):249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dyer C. Researching the implementation of educational policy: a backward mapping approach. Comparative Education. 1999;35(1):45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walker JS, Bruns EJ. Building on practice-based evidence: using expert perspectives to define the wraparound process. Psychiatric Services. 2006;57(11):1597–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bruns EJ, Suter JC, Leverentz-Brady KL. Relations between program and system variables and fidelity to the wraparound process for children and families. Psychiatric Services. 2006;57(11):1586–1593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boychuk Duchscher JE, Morgan D. Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2004;48(6):605–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kendall J. Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1999;21(6):743–757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    New freedom commission on mental health, achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America. Final Report. DHHS Pub. No. SMA–03–3832. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services; 2003.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cox KF. Examining the role of social network intervention as an integral component of community-based, family-focused care. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2005;14(3):443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health, Regional Research InstitutePortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations