Person:
Lewis-Fernandez, Roberto

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Lewis-Fernandez

First Name

Roberto

Name

Lewis-Fernandez, Roberto

Filters

2013 - 20162

Settings

Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.87920dcc-db68-4031-a420-179bf28cee19

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Publication
    How Do Clinicians Prefer Cultural Competence Training? Findings from the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview Field Trial
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2016-08) Aggarwal, Neil Krishan; Lam, Peter; Castillo, Enrico G.; Weiss, Mitchell; Diaz, Esperanza; Alarcón, Renato D.; van Dijk, Rob; Rohlof, Hans; Ndetei, David M.; Scalco, Monica; Aguilar-Gaxiola, Sergio; Bassiri, Kavoos; Deshpande, Smita; Groen, Simon; Jadhav, Sushrut; Kirmayer, Laurence J.; Paralikar, Vasudeo; Westermeyer, Joseph; Santos, Filipa; Vega-Dienstmaier, Johann; Anez, Luis; Boiler, Marit; Nicasio, Andel V.; Lewis-Fernandez, Roberto
    Objective 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. Method 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Publication
    GAP-REACH: A Checklist to Assess Comprehensive Reporting of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Psychiatric Publications
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2013-10) Lewis-Fernandez, Roberto; Raggio, Greer A.; Gorritz, Magdaliz; Duan, Naihua; Marcus, Sue; Cabassa, Leopoldo J.; Humensky, Jennifer; Becker, Anne; Alarcón, Renato D.; Oquendo, María A.; Hansen, Helena; Like, Robert C.; Weiss, Mitchell; Desai, Prakash N.; Jacobsen, Frederick M.; Foulks, Edward F.; Primm, Annelle; Lu, Francis; Kopelowicz, Alex; Hinton, Ladson; Hinton, Devon
    Growing awareness of health and health care disparities highlights the importance of including information about race, ethnicity, and culture (REC) in health research. Reporting of REC factors in research publications, however, is notoriously imprecise and unsystematic. This article describes the development of a checklist to assess the comprehensiveness and the applicability of REC factor reporting in psychiatric research publications. The 16-itemGAP-REACH© checklist was developed through a rigorous process of expert consensus, empirical content analysis in a sample of publications (N = 1205), and interrater reliability (IRR) assessment (N = 30). The items assess each section in the conventional structure of a health research article. Data from the assessment may be considered on an item-by-item basis or as a total score ranging from 0% to 100%. The final checklist has excellent IRR (κ = 0.91). The GAP-REACH may be used by multiple research stakeholders to assess the scope of REC reporting in a research article.