The Outline for Cultural Formulation (OCF) introduced with DSM-IV provided a framework for clinicians to organize cultural information relevant to diagnostic assessment and treatment planning. However, use of the OCF has been inconsistent, raising questions about the need for guidance on implementation, training, and application in diverse settings. To address this need, DSM-5 introduced a cultural formulation interview (CFI) that operationalizes the process of data collection for the OCF. The CFI includes patient and informant versions and 12 supplementary modules addressing specific domains of the OCF. This article summarizes the literature reviews and analyses of experience with the OCF conducted by the DSM-5 Cross-Cultural Issues Subgroup (DCCIS) that informed the development of the CFI. We review the history and contents of the DSM-IV OCF, its use in training programs, and previous attempts to render it operational through questionnaires, protocols, and semi-structured interview formats. Results of research based on the OCF are discussed. For each domain of the OCF, we summarize findings from the DCCIS that led to content revision and operationalization in the CFI. The conclusion discusses training and implementation issues essential to service delivery.

No abstract

No abstract

The Outline for Cultural Formulation (OCF) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) marked an attempt to apply anthropological concepts within psychiatry. The OCF has been criticized for not providing guidelines to clinicians. The DSM-5 Cultural Issues Subgroup has since converted the OCF into the Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) for use by any clinician with any patient in any clinical setting. This paper presents perceived barriers to CFI implementation in clinical practice reported by patients (n=32) and clinicians (n=7) at the New York site within the DSM-5 international field trial. We used an implementation fidelity paradigm to code debriefing interviews after each CFI session through deductive content analysis. The most frequent patient threats were lack of differentiation from other treatments, lack of buy-in, ambiguity of design, over-standardization of the CFI, and severity of illness. The most frequent clinician threats were lack of conceptual relevance between intervention and problem, drift from the format, repetition, severity of patient illness, and lack of clinician buy-in. The Subgroup has revised the CFI based on these barriers for final publication in DSM-5. Our findings expand knowledge on the cultural formulation by reporting the CFI’s reception among patients and clinicians.

There is a need for clinical tools to identify cultural issues in diagnostic assessment.To assess the feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) in routine clinical practice.Mixed-methods evaluation of field trial data from six countries. The CFI was administered to diagnostically diverse psychiatric out-patients during a diagnostic interview. In post-evaluation sessions, patients and clinicians completed debriefing qualitative interviews and Likert-scale questionnaires. The duration of CFI administration and the full diagnostic session were monitored.Mixed-methods data from 318 patients and 75 clinicians found the CFI feasible, acceptable and useful. Clinician feasibility ratings were significantly lower than patient ratings and other clinician-assessed outcomes. After administering one CFI, however, clinician feasibility ratings improved significantly and subsequent interviews required less time.The CFI was included in DSM-5 as a feasible, acceptable and useful cultural assessment tool.