Does the Cultural Formulation Interview for the fifth revision of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) affect medical communication? A qualitative exploratory study from the New York site
Open accessAbstract
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, ethnical, 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 two codes fell under the implementation outcome of clinical utility, two 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 claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The CFI elicits patients' perspectives on what caused their symptoms.
“eliciting patients' perspectives on what caused their symptoms”
From Update on the Cultural Formulation Interview (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
The CFI allows the clinician to obtain new cultural data in a relatively short period.
“allowing the clinician to obtain new, cultural data in a relatively short period”
From Update on the Cultural Formulation Interview (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
The CFI can improve clinical communication by enhancing clinician-patient rapport.
“Preliminary evidence indicates that the CFI can improve clinical communication by enhancing clinicianpatient rapport”
From Update on the Cultural Formulation Interview (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
The CFI helps patients become aware of their problems in more insightful ways.
“helping patients to become aware of their problems in more insightful ways”
From Update on the Cultural Formulation Interview (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 98
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Lewis-Fernández R Cultural Formulation of Psychiatric Diagnosis Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 1996 20 3 133 144 8853962
- Mezzich JE Mezzich JE Caracci G Cultural Formulation: Development and Critical Review Cultural Formulation: A Reader for Psychiatric Diagnosis 2008 Lanham Jason Aronson 87 92
- Authors
- Aggarwal, N. K., Desilva, R., Nicasio, A. V., Boiler, M., & Lewis-Fernández, R.
- Affiliations
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Aggarwal, Neil K.
- Venue
- Ethnicity & Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-11-15
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-28
- ISSN
- 1355-7858 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-3419
- PMC
- PMC4221811
- OpenAlex
- W1998416754
- Semantic Scholar
- a5c4388124fc7ad9124aa8f71d9a72d364f6a5e3
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 16.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Ethnicity and Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH015144)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- Cultural Formulation Interview, DSM-5, patient-clinician communication, cultural formulation, clinical utility, acceptability, feasibility, implementation outcomes, provider satisfaction
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Mental Disorders, Communication, Culture, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, New York, Reproducibility of Results, Qualitative Research, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult
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