How do clinicians prefer cultural competence training? Findings from the DSM-5 cultural formulation interview field trial

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.; 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.; 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).; 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

Feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of the cultural formulation interview : mixed-methods results from the DSM-5 international field trial

BackgroundThere is a need for clinical tools to identify cultural issues in diagnostic assessment.AimsTo assess the feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) in routine clinical practice.MethodMixed-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.ResultsMixed-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.ConclusionsThe CFI was included in DSM-5 as a feasible, acceptable and useful cultural assessment tool