Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 113 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Culture and Psychiatric Evaluation: Operationalizing Cultural Formulation for DSM-5

Open access
Lewis-Fernández, Roberto, Aggarwal, Neil Krishan, Bäärnhielm, Sofie, Rohlof, Hans, Kirmayer, Laurence J., Weiss, Mitchell G., Jadhav, Sushrut, Hinton, Ladson, Alarcón, Renato D., Bhugra, Dinesh, Groen, Simon, van Dijk, Rob, Qureshi, Adil, Collazos, Francisco, Rousseau, Cécile, Caballero, Luis, Ramos, Mar, Lu, Francis·2014·Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes
DOI 10.1521/psyc.2014.77.2.130
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/psyc.2014.77.2.130

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 113 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lewis-Fernández, R., Aggarwal, N. K., Bäärnhielm, S., Rohlof, H., Kirmayer, L. J., Weiss, M. G., Jadhav, S., Hinton, L., Alarcón, R. D., Bhugra, D., Groen, S., van Dijk, R., Qureshi, A., Collazos, F., Rousseau, C., Caballero, L., Ramos, M., & Lu, F.
Venue
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes
Publisher
Guilford Publications
Published
2014-06
Volume
77
Issue
2
Pages
130-154
ISSN
0033-2747 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1521/psyc.2014.77.2.130
OpenAlex
W2084885548
Cited by
269
References
113
FWCI
103.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.