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.

Objectives Cross-cultural mental health researchers often analyze patient explanatory models of illness to optimize service provision. The Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) is a cross-cultural assessment tool released in May 2013 with DSM-5 to revise shortcomings from the DSM-IV Outline for Cultural Formulation (OCF). The CFI field trial took place in 6 countries, 14 sites, and with 321 patients to explore its feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility with patients and clinicians. We sought to analyze if and how CFI feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility were related to patient-clinician communication. Design We report data from the New York site which enrolled 7 clinicians and 32 patients in 32 patient-clinician dyads. We undertook a data analysis independent of the parent field trial by conducting content analyses of debriefing interviews with all participants (n=64) based on codebooks derived from frameworks for medical communication and implementation outcomes. Three coders created codebooks, coded independently, established inter-rater coding reliability, and analyzed if the CFI affects medical communication with respect to feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility. Results Despite racial, ethnic, cultural, and professional differences within our group of patients and clinicians, we found that promoting satisfaction through the interview, eliciting data, eliciting the patient’s perspective, and perceiving data at multiple levels were common codes that explained how the CFI affected medical communication. We also found that all but 2 codes fell under the implementation outcome of clinical utility, 2 fell under acceptability, and none fell under feasibility. Conclusion Our study offers new directions for research on how a cultural interview affects patient-clinician communication. Future research can analyze how the CFI and other cultural interviews impact medical communication in clinical settings with subsequent effects on outcomes such as medication adherence, appointment retention, and health condition.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, (DSM-5) Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) is a systematic, semi-structured interview developed to guide clinicians on conducting a cultural assessment in routine mental health settings. An international field trial with 318 patients, 75 clinicians, and 86 family members in 6 countries found the core version of the CFI to be feasible, acceptable, and clinically useful, and a growing evidence base has led to its inclusion in worldwide mental health services. We review the definition of culture that underlies the CFI, its development and components, and how to apply it in care. We also focus on barriers to its implementation and how these are being addressed by investigators and clinicians. The cultural formulation approach stemming from DSM-IV, of which the DSM-5 CFI is the latest iteration, constitutes the cultural competence paradigm with the largest evidence base in mental health service delivery. [Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(3):154-159.] T he Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, (DSM-5) 1 to guide clinicians on how to conduct a cultural assessment in routine

The importance of building a strong treatment alliance is widely accepted and uncontroversial. Quantitative research suggests that coercive experiences during psychiatric treatment negatively affect the treatment alliance, but reveals little about how this happens or how patients navigate treatment relationships while experiencing coercion during psychiatric treatment.Methods: Fifty psychiatric inpatients were interviewed at two hospitals.Patients were asked open-ended questions about the relationship between the treatment alliance and a set of coercive treatment experiences (court-mandated treatment, involuntary hospitalization, locked facilities) and whether such hospital experiences affected the patients' plans for future adherence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed.Results: Many participants reported events where coercion made it difficult to form a treatment alliance. An imbalance of power, lack of control, and insufficient participation in treatment planning were described as experiences that interfered with the treatment alliance. Other participants felt the treatment alliance was maintained despite coercive experiences and spoke of good communication with the psychiatrist, understanding the rationale behind interventions, and feeling the psychiatrist was trying to keep the patient's best interests in mind.Conclusions: Coercive experiences remain undesirable and are frequently detrimental to the treatment alliance. Nevertheless, patients and clinicians should continue to seek a strong treatment alliance even when treatment plans include coercive elements. Efforts to improve communication, to explain the rationale for treatment plans, and to show that clinicians are trying to act in the patient's best interests may help to preserve a therapeutic alliance.