Cited by 49Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health servicesChild Welfare and Adoption

Is It Wraparound Yet? Setting Quality Standards for Implementation of the Wraparound Process

Bruns, Eric J., Suter, Jesse C., Leverentz-Brady, Kristen·2008·The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research

Abstract

The wraparound process has increasingly been used as a mechanism to plan and coordinate services for children with behavioral health needs and their families. This has led to growing interest in assessing wraparound implementation against standards for quality. However, there has been little consideration of how best to establish such benchmarks or guidelines. Using both a norm-referenced and criterion-referenced approach, this study established preliminary criteria for assessing the adequacy of wraparound implementation using the Wraparound Fidelity Index, version 3, a multi-informant interview that assesses conformance to wraparound principles. The evaluation system was then applied to ten wraparound programs and 11 different study samples assessed via the Wraparound Fidelity Index version 3 in research studies. The system was constructed to discriminate different wraparound conditions assessed in research studies while still being attainable by the ten established wraparound programs. Implications for evaluating wraparound programs and for setting fidelity benchmarks in behavioral health services research are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11414-008-9109-3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Social worker activities such as participating on child and family care teams, ensuring fidelity to family-centered planning, facilitating communication across sectors, and helping to establish and implement multi-stakeholder care plans are essential for effective cross-system collaboration and consistent care planning and implementation.

    “All of these activities are essential for effective cross-system collaboration and consistent care planning and implementation (Bruns et al., 2008; Kuo et al., 2018).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruns, E. J., Suter, J. C., & Leverentz-Brady, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Bruns, Eric J.
Venue
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
Published
2008-05-30
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
240-252
ISSN
  • 1094-3412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3308
OpenAlex
W2150685924
Cited by
49
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
Keywords
implementation fidelity, quality standards, behavioral health services, family-centered services, program evaluation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affective Symptoms, Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Child Health Services, Child, Preschool, Community Mental Health Services, Female, Humans, Male, Social Behavior Disorders, United States, Adolescent Health Services, Benchmarking

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