Adapting the Cultural Formulation Interview for the Military.

OBJECTIVE: U.S. military service members, veterans, and their families increasingly seek care from providers with limited knowledge of military culture. The 16-item core DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) was designed to integrate cultural factors into assessment and treatment of mental disorders. Although the CFI was designed for use with all patients, it is unknown whether the CFI adequately assesses military culture. The authors describe a methodology to determine the need for specific CFI versions and how to create a version for use with persons affiliated with the military. METHODS: Published articles on cultural competence in the military were systematically reviewed. Cultural domains were abstracted from each article, inductively coded, and hierarchically organized for assessment against the core CFI. A military CFI was created with additional implementation instructions, questions, and probes when the core CFI was inadequate for eliciting relevant cultural domains. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles were included. Coding revealed 22 military culture domains, of which only five would be elicited in the core CFI without additional guidance. Twelve of 16 questions in the core CFI required additional instructions, five benefited from question edits, and 10 needed additional probing questions. On the basis of these results, the authors crafted a military version of the CFI for service members, veterans, and their families. CONCLUSIONS: The military CFI for clinicians assesses aspects of military culture that are not comprehensively evaluated through the core CFI. The development process described in this article may inform the creation of other versions when the core CFI does not comprehensively assess cultural needs for specific populations.

Coercion and the Inpatient Treatment Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of building a strong treatment alliance is widely accepted and uncontroversial. Quantitative research suggests that coercive experiences during psychiatric treatment negatively affect the treatment alliance, but reveals little about how this happens or how patients navigate treatment relationships while experiencing coercion during psychiatric treatment. METHODS: Fifty psychiatric inpatients were interviewed at two hospitals. Patients were asked open-ended questions about the relationship between the treatment alliance and a set of coercive treatment experiences (court-mandated treatment, involuntary hospitalization, locked facilities) and whether such hospital experiences affected the patients' plans for future adherence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Many participants reported events where coercion made it difficult to form a treatment alliance. An imbalance of power, lack of control, and insufficient participation in treatment planning were described as experiences that interfered with the treatment alliance. Other participants felt the treatment alliance was maintained despite coercive experiences and spoke of good communication with the psychiatrist, understanding the rationale behind interventions, and feeling the psychiatrist was trying to keep the patient's best interests in mind. CONCLUSIONS: Coercive experiences remain undesirable and are frequently detrimental to the treatment alliance. Nevertheless, patients and clinicians should continue to seek a strong treatment alliance even when treatment plans include coercive elements. Efforts to improve communication, to explain the rationale for treatment plans, and to show that clinicians are trying to act in the patient's best interests may help to preserve a therapeutic alliance.