Perspectives of family members participating in cultural assessment of psychiatric disorders: Findings from the DSM-5 International Field Trial
Open accessAbstract
Despite the important roles families play in the lives of many individuals 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 four of 12 sites) included companions, all of whom were family members or other relatives. The utility, feasibility and acceptability of the CFI were rated favourably by relatives, supported by qualitative analyses of debriefing interviews. Cross-site differences in frequency of accompaniment merit further study.
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?
Of the 321 patient interviews in the DSM-5 field trial, 86 at four of the 12 sites included family members, who generally found the CFI acceptable, although some found the questions too time consuming, intrusive, or personal.
“Investigators found that of the 321 patient interviews in the DSM-5 field trial, 86 at four of the 12 sites included family members, who generally found the CFI acceptable, although some found the questions too time consuming, intrusive, or personal (25).”
From Update on the Cultural Formulation Interview (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
Family members accompanied all patients in Kenya, whereas no relatives went to interviews in Canada and the United States.
“Family members accompanied all patients in Kenya, whereas no relatives went to interviews in Canada and the United States, perhaps reflecting differences in family-versus individual-oriented care and support in these settings.”
From Update on the Cultural Formulation Interview (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
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 14 · Cited by 20
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Diaz E Armah T Hinton L Lewis-Fernández R Aggarwal NK Hinton L Hinton DE Kirmayer LK Social network The DSM-5 Handbook on the Cultural Formulation Interview American Psychiatric Publishing Arlington VA in press
- Hinton L Hargrave R Ahmed I Lewis-Fernández R Aggarwal NK Hinton L Hinton DE Kirmayer LK Overview and clinical application of the caregiver supplementary module The DSM-5 Handbook on the Cultural Formulation Interview American Psychiatric Publishing Arlington, VA in press
- Lewis-Fernández R Aggarwal NK Hinton L Hinton DE Kirmayer LK The DSM-5 Handbook on the Cultural Formulation Interview American Psychiatric Publishing Arlington VA in press
- Authors
- Hinton, L., Aggarwal, N., Iosif, A.-M., Weiss, M., Paralikar, V., Deshpande, S., Jadhav, S., Ndetei, D., Nicasio, A., Boiler, M., Lam, P., Avelar, Y., & Lewis-Fernández, R.
- Affiliations
- University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (CH)
- King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth G.S. Medical College (IN)
- Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (IN)
- University of London (GB)
- University of Nairobi (KE)
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hinton, Ladson
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Review of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-01-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-10
- ISSN
- 0954-0261 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-1627
- PMC
- PMC4455874
- OpenAlex
- W2150924021
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 12.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- International Review of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH102334)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
- Keywords
- Cultural Formulation Interview, cultural assessment, family members, patient companions, DSM-5, mental illness, cross-cultural psychiatry, feasibility, acceptability, clinical utility
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Mental Disorders, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Ethnopsychology, Family, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
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
