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.

Context:Development of the cultural formulation interview (CFI) in DSM-5 required validation for cross-cultural and global use.Aims:To assess the overall value (OV) of CFI in the domains of feasibility, acceptability, and utility from the vantage points of clinician-interviewers, patients and accompanying relatives.Settings and Design:We conducted cross-sectional semi-structured debriefing interviews in a psychiatric outpatient clinic of a general hospital.Materials and Methods:We debriefed 36 patients, 12 relatives and eight interviewing clinicians following the audio-recorded CFI. We transformed their Likert scale responses into ordinal values – positive for agreement and negative for disagreement (range +2 to −2).Statistical Analysis:We compared mean ratings of patients, relatives and clinician-interviewers using nonparametric tests. Clinician-wise grouping of patients enabled assessment of clinician effects, inasmuch as patients were randomly interviewed by eight clinicians. We assessed the influence of the presence of relatives, clinical diagnosis and interview characteristics by comparing means. Patient and clinician background characteristics were also compared.Results:Patients, relatives and clinicians rated the CFI positively with few differences among them. Patients with serious mental disorders gave lower ratings. Rating of OV was lower for patients and clinicians when relatives were present. Clinician effects were minimal. Clinicians experienced with culturally diverse patients rated the CFI more positively. Narratives clarified the rationale for ratings.Conclusions:Though developed for the American DSM-5, the CFI was valued by clinicians, patients and relatives in out-patient psychiatric assessment in urban Pune, India. Though relatives may add information and other value, their presence in the interview may impose additional demands on clinicians. Our findings contribute to cross-cultural evaluation of the CFI.

Objective This study’s objective is to analyze training methods clinicians reported as most and least helpful during the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview field trial, reasons why, and associations between demographic characteristics and method preferences. Method The authors used mixed methods to analyze interviews from 75 clinicians in five continents on their training preferences after a standardized training session and clinicians’ first administration of the Cultural Formulation Interview. Content analysis identified most and least helpful educational methods by reason. Bivariate and logistic regression analysis compared clinician characteristics to method preferences. Results Most frequently, clinicians named case-based behavioral simulations as “most helpful” and video as “least helpful” training methods. Bivariate and logistic regression models, first unadjusted and then clustered by country, found that each additional year of a clinician’s age was associated with a preference for behavioral simulations: OR=1.05 (95% CI: 1.01–1.10; p=0.025). Conclusions Most clinicians preferred active behavioral simulations in cultural competence training, and this effect was most pronounced among older clinicians. Effective training may be best accomplished through a combination of reviewing written guidelines, video demonstration, and behavioral simulations. Future work can examine the impact of clinician training satisfaction on patient symptoms and quality of life.

Existence of emotional distress among HIV test-seekers, particularly among repeat test-seekers, possibly 'AIDS-anxious' individuals indicates additional counseling needs specifically by introducing gender and education sensitive interventions. VCT staff can be trained to assess emotional distress among HIV test-seekers to formulate long-term intervention.

The DSM-IV Outline for Cultural Formulation (OCF) was a framework for assessment based on principles of cultural psychiatry. The Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) for DSM-5 provided a tool enabling wider use of cultural formulation in clinical cultural assessment. Validation to justify the inclusion of the CFI in DSM-5 involved quantitative analysis of debriefing interviews of patients and clinicians for feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility. We now further examine qualitative field trial data from the CFI interviews and the debriefing interviews in Pune, India. Administration of the CFI was followed by routine diagnostic assessment of 36 psychiatric outpatients—11 found to have severe mental disorders (SMD) and 25 with common mental disorders (CMD). Domain-wise thematic analyses of the CFI and debriefing interviews identified recurrent themes based on cultural identity, illness explanatory models, stressful and supportive social relationships, and the impact of political, economic, and cultural contexts. A tendency to elaborate accounts, rather than simply name their problem, and more diverse past help-seeking distinguished CMD from SMD groups. Patients valued the CFI more than clinicians did, and most patients did not consider cultural background differences of clinician-patient relationships to be relevant. Qualitative analysis of CFI data and critical analysis of domain mapping of CFI content to the structure of OCF domains indicated the value of revising the dimensional structure of the OCF. A proposed revision (OCF-R) is expected to better facilitate clinical use and research on cultural formulation and use of the CFI.

Purpose India’s Mental Healthcare Act 2017 provides a right to mental healthcare, revises admission and review procedures, effectively decriminalises suicide and has strong non-discrimination measures, among other provisions. The purpose of this paper is to examine Indian mental health professionals’ views of these changes as they relate to stigma and inclusion of the mentally ill. Design/methodology/approach The authors held nine focus groups in three Indian states, involving 61 mental health professionals including 56 psychiatrists. Findings Several themes relating to stigma and inclusion emerged: stigma is ubiquitous and results in social exclusion; stigma might be increased rather than remedied by certain regulations in the 2017 Act; stigma is not adequately dealt with in the legislation; stigma might discourage people from making “advance directives”; and there is a crucial relationship between stigma and education. Practical implications Implementation of India’s 2017 Act needs to be accompanied by adequate service resourcing and extensive education, including public education. This has commenced but needs substantial resources in order to fulfil the Act’s potential. Social implications India’s mental health legislation governs the mental healthcare of 1.3bn people, one sixth of the planet’s population; seeking to use law to diminish stigma and enhance inclusion in such a large country sets a strong example for other nations. Originality/value This is the first study of stigma and inclusion since India’s 2017 Act was commenced and it highlights both the potential and the challenges of such ambitious rights-based legislation.

No abstract

Despite the important roles families play in the lives of many persons with mental illness across cultures, there is a dearth of data worldwide on how family members perceive the process of cultural assessment as well as to how to best include them. This study addresses this gap in our knowledge through analysis of data collected across six countries as part of a DSM-5 Field Trial of the Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI). At clinician discretion, individuals who accompanied patients to the clinic visit (i.e. patient companions) at the time the CFI was conducted were invited to participate in the cultural assessment and answer questions about their experience. The specific aims of this paper are (1) to describe patterns of participation of patient companions in the CFI across the six countries, and (2) to examine the comparative feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility of the CFI from companion perspectives through analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. Among the 321 patient interviews, only 86 (at 4 of 12 sites) included companions, all of whom were family members or other relatives. The utility, feasibility and acceptability of the CFI were rated favorably by relatives, supported by qualitative analyses of debriefing interviews. Cross-site differences in frequency of accompaniment merit further study.