定量系统综述:评估 DSM-5 文化表述访谈 (CFI) 对临床医生、患者和亲属的可接受性、可行性和临床实用性的有利程度

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1177/00220221241269994
Rony Kayrouz, Eyal Karin, Lauren Staples, Olav Nielssen, Shane Cross, Blake F. Dear, Nickolai Titov
{"title":"定量系统综述:评估 DSM-5 文化表述访谈 (CFI) 对临床医生、患者和亲属的可接受性、可行性和临床实用性的有利程度","authors":"Rony Kayrouz, Eyal Karin, Lauren Staples, Olav Nielssen, Shane Cross, Blake F. Dear, Nickolai Titov","doi":"10.1177/00220221241269994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) is a semi-structured interview in the DSM-5 comprised of three parts: a core-16-item questionnaire, an informant version for relatives or relevant others, and 12 supplementary modules placing culture and context at the center of patient assessment and treatment to clarify diagnosis and treatment and ensure patients feel understood. The paper aims to synthesize the current quantitative evidence on CFI’s favorability (i.e., whether it is feasible, acceptable, and valuable) for patients, clinicians, and relatives. A mixed-methods synthesis methodology was used to assess the impact of the favorability of the CFI for patients, clinicians and relatives, and clinicians’ cultural competence. The synthesis included 10 studies on the clinician’s competency, attitudes, training, and diagnosis, three studies on the views of the patients and clinicians about the CFI, and five studies with 34 estimates ( n = 581) on the favorability of the CFI for patients, clinicians and relatives. Clinicians reported that the CFI increased their cultural knowledge across research, training, and practice settings. Patients reported that the CFI prioritized their perspective and increased rapport-building. A quantitative estimate from the five studies on the acceptability, utility, and feasibility of CFI from patients, relatives, and clinicians was favorable, suggesting that patients, relatives, and clinicians were satisfied with using the CFI. A protocol for standardizing CFI training and practice to inform future research using mixed-methods designs that include randomized control trials (RCTs) to examine the effect of the CFI on the clinician’s cultural competence, working alliance, and patient’s level of functioning was recommended.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Quantitative Systematic Review to Evaluate the Favorability of the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) on the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Clinical Utility for Clinicians, Patients, and Relatives\",\"authors\":\"Rony Kayrouz, Eyal Karin, Lauren Staples, Olav Nielssen, Shane Cross, Blake F. Dear, Nickolai Titov\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00220221241269994\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) is a semi-structured interview in the DSM-5 comprised of three parts: a core-16-item questionnaire, an informant version for relatives or relevant others, and 12 supplementary modules placing culture and context at the center of patient assessment and treatment to clarify diagnosis and treatment and ensure patients feel understood. The paper aims to synthesize the current quantitative evidence on CFI’s favorability (i.e., whether it is feasible, acceptable, and valuable) for patients, clinicians, and relatives. A mixed-methods synthesis methodology was used to assess the impact of the favorability of the CFI for patients, clinicians and relatives, and clinicians’ cultural competence. The synthesis included 10 studies on the clinician’s competency, attitudes, training, and diagnosis, three studies on the views of the patients and clinicians about the CFI, and five studies with 34 estimates ( n = 581) on the favorability of the CFI for patients, clinicians and relatives. Clinicians reported that the CFI increased their cultural knowledge across research, training, and practice settings. Patients reported that the CFI prioritized their perspective and increased rapport-building. A quantitative estimate from the five studies on the acceptability, utility, and feasibility of CFI from patients, relatives, and clinicians was favorable, suggesting that patients, relatives, and clinicians were satisfied with using the CFI. A protocol for standardizing CFI training and practice to inform future research using mixed-methods designs that include randomized control trials (RCTs) to examine the effect of the CFI on the clinician’s cultural competence, working alliance, and patient’s level of functioning was recommended.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221241269994\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221241269994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文化表述访谈(CFI)是 DSM-5 中的一种半结构化访谈,由三部分组成:16 个项目的核心问卷、供亲属或相关人员使用的线人版本以及 12 个补充模块,将文化和背景置于患者评估和治疗的中心,以明确诊断和治疗,确保患者感到被理解。本文旨在综合目前有关 CFI 对患者、临床医生和亲属有利性(即是否可行、可接受和有价值)的定量证据。本文采用混合方法综合法来评估 CFI 对患者、临床医生和亲属的有利程度以及临床医生文化能力的影响。综述包括 10 项关于临床医生能力、态度、培训和诊断的研究,3 项关于患者和临床医生对 CFI 的看法的研究,以及 5 项关于 CFI 对患者、临床医生和亲属的好感度的研究(34 项估计值,n = 581)。临床医生表示,CFI 增加了他们在研究、培训和实践环境中的文化知识。患者表示,CFI 优先考虑了他们的观点并增进了关系的建立。五项研究对患者、亲属和临床医生对 CFI 的可接受性、实用性和可行性进行了量化评估,结果表明患者、亲属和临床医生对使用 CFI 表示满意。建议制定 CFI 培训和实践标准化方案,为今后采用混合方法设计(包括随机对照试验 (RCT))的研究提供参考,以检验 CFI 对临床医生的文化能力、工作联盟和患者功能水平的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Quantitative Systematic Review to Evaluate the Favorability of the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) on the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Clinical Utility for Clinicians, Patients, and Relatives
The Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) is a semi-structured interview in the DSM-5 comprised of three parts: a core-16-item questionnaire, an informant version for relatives or relevant others, and 12 supplementary modules placing culture and context at the center of patient assessment and treatment to clarify diagnosis and treatment and ensure patients feel understood. The paper aims to synthesize the current quantitative evidence on CFI’s favorability (i.e., whether it is feasible, acceptable, and valuable) for patients, clinicians, and relatives. A mixed-methods synthesis methodology was used to assess the impact of the favorability of the CFI for patients, clinicians and relatives, and clinicians’ cultural competence. The synthesis included 10 studies on the clinician’s competency, attitudes, training, and diagnosis, three studies on the views of the patients and clinicians about the CFI, and five studies with 34 estimates ( n = 581) on the favorability of the CFI for patients, clinicians and relatives. Clinicians reported that the CFI increased their cultural knowledge across research, training, and practice settings. Patients reported that the CFI prioritized their perspective and increased rapport-building. A quantitative estimate from the five studies on the acceptability, utility, and feasibility of CFI from patients, relatives, and clinicians was favorable, suggesting that patients, relatives, and clinicians were satisfied with using the CFI. A protocol for standardizing CFI training and practice to inform future research using mixed-methods designs that include randomized control trials (RCTs) to examine the effect of the CFI on the clinician’s cultural competence, working alliance, and patient’s level of functioning was recommended.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology publishes papers that focus on the interrelationships between culture and psychological processes. Submitted manuscripts may report results from either cross-cultural comparative research or results from other types of research concerning the ways in which culture (and related concepts such as ethnicity) affect the thinking and behavior of individuals as well as how individual thought and behavior define and reflect aspects of culture. Review papers and innovative reformulations of cross-cultural theory will also be considered. Studies reporting data from within a single nation should focus on cross-cultural perspective. Empirical studies must be described in sufficient detail to be potentially replicable.
期刊最新文献
A Quantitative Systematic Review to Evaluate the Favorability of the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) on the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Clinical Utility for Clinicians, Patients, and Relatives Studying Culture, a Methodological Endeavor Exploring Professional and Carer Stakeholder Conceptualizations of Child and Adolescent Mental Health in Malawi Using a Contextual Co-Design Methodology: The Interplay of Pathology, the Supernatural, and a Pathway to Healing The Role of Perceived Forms of Discrimination Within the Psychological Acculturation Process of First-Generation Immigrants: A Scoping Review Who Is Your Biggest Critic? Cultural Variation in Moral Judgments of the Self and Others
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1