Assessing the wraparound process during family planning meetings

  • Michael H. Epstein
  • Philip D. Nordness
  • Krista Kutash
  • Al Duchnowski
  • Sheryl Schrepf
  • Greg J. Benner
  • J. Ron Nelson
Brief Reports

Abstract

Research and evaluation of the wraparound process has typically focused on outcomes, service providers, and costs. While many of these studies describe a process that is consistent with the wraparound approach, few studies have reported attempts to monitor or measure the treatment fidelity of the wraparound process. The purpose of this study was to assess the fidelity of the wraparound process in a community-based system of care using the Wraparound Observation Form-Second Version. Results from 112 family planning meetings indicated some strengths and weaknesses within the current system. Families and professionals were frequently involved in the planning and implementation of the wraparound process. However, informal supports and natural family supports were not present in a majority of the meetings. Given the significant number of youth served in wraparound programs, the benefits of using the Wraparound Observation Form-Second Version as an instrument to monitor the fidelity of the wraparound approach should not be ignored.

Keywords

Public Health Service Provider Health Promotion Health Psychology Family Planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services.Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ringel JS, Strum R. National estimates of mental health utilization and expenditures for children in 1998.Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research. 2001;28:319–332.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kutash K, Duchnowski AJ. Create comprehensive and collaborative systems.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 1997;5:66–75.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stroul BA, ed.Children's Mental Health: Creating Systems of Care in a Changing Society. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burns BJ, Hoagwood K, Mrazek PJ. Effective treatment for mental disorders in children and adolescents.Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1999;2:199–254.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burns BJ, Goldman SW, eds.Promising Practices in Wraparound for Children With Serious Emotional Disturbance and Their Families. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research; 1999.Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children's Mental Health; 1998 Series, vol IV.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stroul BA, Friedman RM.A System of Care for Severely Emotionally Disturbed Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Child and Adolescent Service System Program (CASSP); 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark HB, Clark RT. Research on the wraparound process and individualized services for children with multi-system needs.Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1996;5:1–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burchard JD, Bruns EJ, Burchard SN. The wraparound approach. In: Burns B, Hoagwood K, eds.Community-Based Interventions for Children and Families. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002: 69–90.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bruns EJ, Burchard JD, Yoe JT. Evaluating the Vermont system of care: outcomes associated with community-based wraparound services.Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1995;4:321–339.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eber L, Osuch R. Bringing the wraparound approach to school: a model for inclusion. In: Liberton C, Newman C, Kutash K, et al, eds.The 7th Annual Research Conference Proceedings. A System of Care for Children's Mental Health: Expanding the Research Base. Tampa, Fla: Research & Training Center for Children's Mental Health; 1995:143–152.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke RT, Schafer M, Burchard JD, et al. Wrapping community-based mental health services around children with a severe behavioral disorder: an evaluation of project wraparound.Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1992;1:241–261.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eber L, Osuch R, Reddit C. School-based applications of the wraparound process: early results on service provision and student outcomes.Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1996;5:83–89.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rotto K, Sokol P, Matthew B, et al. Research for dummies: a practitioner's view of outcomes. Paper presented at: the 11th Annual Research Conference. A System of Care for Children's Mental Health: Expanding the Research Base; 1998; Tampa, Fla.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoe JT, Santarcangelo S, Atkins M, et al. Wraparound care in Vermont: program development, implementation, and evaluation of a statewide system of individualized services.Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1996;5:23–39.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenblatt A. Bows and ribbons, tape and twine: wrapping the wraparound process for children with multi-system needs.Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1998;5:101–116.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hogue A, Liddle HA, Rowe C. Treatment adherence process research in family therapy: a rationale and some practical guidelines.Psychotherapy. 1996;33:332–345.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moncher FJ, Prinz RJ. Treatment fidelity in outcome studies.Clinical Psychology Review. 1991;11:247–266.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schoenwald SK, Henggeler SW, Brondino MJ, et al. Multisystemic therapy: monitoring treatment fidelity.Family Process. 2000;39:83–103.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bickman L. The most dangerous and difficult question in mental health services research.Mental Health Services Research. 2000;2:71–72.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lourie IS, Stroul BA, Friedman RM. Community-based systems of care: from advocacy to outcomes. In: Epstein MH, Kutash K, Duchnowski A, eds.Outcomes for Children & Youth With Behavioral and Emotional Disorders and Their Families. Austin, Tex: Pro-Ed; 1998:3–20.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burchard JD, Bruns EJ. The role of case study in the evaluation of individualized services. In: Epstein MH, Kutash K, Duchnowski A, eds.Outcomes for Children & Youth With Behavioral and Emotional Disorders and Their Families. Austin, Tex: Pro-Ed; 1998:363–384.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bruns EJ, Burchard JD, Ermold JM. The Wraparound Fidelity Index: results from an initial pilot test. In: Newman C, Liberton CJ, Kutash K, et al., eds.The 13th Annual Research Conference Proceedings. A System of Care for Children's Mental Health: Expanding the Research Base. Tampa, Fla: Research & Training Center for Children's Mental Health; 2001:339–342.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malysiak-Bertram R, Bertram-Malysiak B, Duchnowski AJ. What maintains fidelity in a wraparound approach? Why is this important to families and providers? In: Liberton CJ, Newman C, Kutash K, et al, eds.The 12th Annual Research Conference Proceedings. A System of Care for Children's Mental Health: Expanding the Research Base. Tampa, Fla: Research & Training Center for Children's Mental Health; 1999:197–202.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh NN, Curtis WJ, Wechsler HA, et al. Family friendliness of community-based services for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders and their families: an observational study.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 1997;5:82–92.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epstein MH, Jayanthi M, McKelvey J, et al. Reliability of the observation form: an instrument to measure the wraparound process.Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1998;7:161–170.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kazdin AE.Single-Case Research Designs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael H. Epstein
    • 1
  • Philip D. Nordness
    • 1
  • Krista Kutash
    • 2
  • Al Duchnowski
    • 2
  • Sheryl Schrepf
    • 3
  • Greg J. Benner
    • 1
  • J. Ron Nelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for At-Risk Children's Services, Department of Special Education and Communication DisordersUniversity of Nebraska — LincolnLincoln
  2. 2.Department of Child and Family Studies in Louise de la Parte InstituteUniversity of South FloridaTampa
  3. 3.Families, First, and ForemostLincoln

Personalised recommendations