Aggarwal Neil K, Desilva Ravi, Nicasio Andel V, Boiler Marit, Lewis-Fernández Roberto
a Department of Psychiatry , Columbia University , New York , NY , USA.
Ethn Health. 2015;20(1):1-28. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2013.857762. Epub 2013 Nov 15.
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.
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.
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.
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.
跨文化心理健康研究人员经常分析患者对疾病的解释模型,以优化服务提供。文化定式访谈(CFI)是2013年5月与《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版(DSM - 5)一同发布的跨文化评估工具,旨在修正《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第4版文化定式大纲(OCF)的不足之处。CFI现场试验在6个国家的14个地点开展,涉及321名患者,以探究其在患者和临床医生中的可行性、可接受性及临床实用性。我们试图分析CFI的可行性、可接受性及临床实用性是否以及如何与医患沟通相关。
我们报告来自纽约站点的数据,该站点招募了7名临床医生和32名患者,形成32个医患配对。我们通过对所有参与者(n = 64)的汇报访谈进行内容分析,开展了一项独立于母现场试验的数据分析,内容分析基于从医疗沟通和实施结果框架衍生而来的编码手册。三名编码员创建编码手册、独立编码、确定评分者间编码可靠性,并分析CFI在可行性、可接受性及临床实用性方面是否影响医疗沟通。
尽管我们的患者和临床医生群体存在种族、民族、文化和专业差异,但我们发现,通过访谈提高满意度、获取数据、了解患者观点以及从多个层面理解数据是解释CFI如何影响医疗沟通的常见编码。我们还发现,除两个编码外,所有编码都属于临床实用性的实施结果,两个属于可接受性,没有一个属于可行性。
我们的研究为文化访谈如何影响医患沟通的研究提供了新方向。未来的研究可以分析CFI和其他文化访谈如何在临床环境中影响医疗沟通,以及对诸如药物依从性、预约保留率和健康状况等结果产生后续影响。