Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
A cultural formulation interview (CFI) intake documents what the 16-question CFI from DSM-5-TR elicits: the client's own definition of the problem, explanatory model, stressors and supports, cultural identity, and preferences for care. Psychologists, therapists, and psychiatrists fold it into initial evaluations when cultural context shapes diagnosis or engagement. The interview takes about 20 minutes; the documented section usually runs 200 to 500 words.
Psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists, counselors, and clinical teams at intake
Treating clinician and care team; payers and auditors review the surrounding intake evaluation
200 to 500 words · 15 to 25 minutes by hand (clinical team estimate)
Structured interview addendum to intake documentation (compare: intake note, biopsychosocial assessment)
During initial evaluations, when cultural context shapes presentation, engagement, or diagnostic risk
A DSM-5-TR Section III convention; no US, Canadian, or Australian law, payer, or accreditor requires it
A cultural formulation interview (CFI) intake is the documented record of the CFI, which the American Psychiatric Association describes as "a set of 16 questions" clinicians may use during a mental health assessment to understand how culture shapes a client's presentation and care. Clinicians also call the write-up a cultural formulation, a cultural assessment, or simply the CFI section of the intake. The lineage runs through three editions of the DSM: contributors to DSM-IV created the Outline for Cultural Formulation in 1994 to refocus interviews on the client's own explanatory model of illness, the DSM-5 Cross-Cultural Issues Subgroup turned that outline into an actual interview protocol for DSM-5 in 2013, and a six-country field trial with 318 patients and 75 clinicians found it feasible, acceptable, and useful. The protocol covers four domains: how the client defines the problem, what they see as its causes, context, and supports, how they have coped and sought help before, and what shapes their help seeking now. An Informant Version gathers the same picture from family or caregivers, and 12 supplementary modules go deeper on each subtopic and on specific populations, all published free on psychiatry.org.
Two boundaries define the document. First, the CFI is a professional convention, not a mandate: it sits in Section III of DSM-5-TR among the emerging measures the APA offers to support clinical judgment, "not as the sole basis for making a clinical diagnosis" (APA). No US, Canadian, or Australian statute, payer policy, or accreditation standard requires a CFI, and no billing code attaches to it. Second, it is not a standalone note type: the cultural formulation almost always lives inside the intake note, biopsychosocial assessment, or psychiatric diagnostic evaluation it enriches. DSM-5-TR (2022) kept the interview itself intact: the 16 questions in the APA's posted DSM-5-TR edition match the 2013 version word for word, while the surrounding text adopted updated terminology such as "racialized" and "ethnoracial" per the APA's culture and racism fact sheet.
Psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists, and counselors add the CFI to initial evaluations, and community mental health, refugee health, student counseling, and transcultural psychiatry services use it most. It earns its minutes when cultural context is doing real clinical work: when the client's explanation of the problem differs from the clinician's, when a presentation could be misread across cultures (a spiritual experience that might be mislabeled psychosis, distress expressed through the body), when engagement keeps failing, or when family expectations, migration, faith, or discrimination sit close to the presenting problem. The developers built it for any client, not only for visible cultural difference, and it has been evaluated internationally in the United States, Canada, Kenya, Peru, the Netherlands, India, and Mexico. Timing matters: the same review notes the CFI is harder to conduct with acute psychosis, suicidal behavior, aggression, or significant cognitive impairment, so in a crisis presentation clinicians stabilize first, complete the mental status exam and risk assessment, and hold the CFI for a calmer session. Where a focused concern dominates, a specialized assessment such as a substance use assessment or a developmental assessment leads, and the CFI supplies the cultural layer inside it.
The section order below follows the four CFI domains, paraphrased for documentation. The interview itself is free to reproduce for patient care (see the FAQ), but the note should synthesize what the client said, not reprint the question set.
Client and interview context. Client identifiers, date, clinician and credentials, the language the interview was conducted in, interpreter used or declined, which CFI components were administered (core interview, Informant Version and the informant's relationship, any supplementary modules), and the evaluation the addendum belongs to. Pitfall: leaving interview language and interpreter status off the record; language access is the one culture-adjacent element carried by law and accreditation, and it must be documentable.
Cultural definition of the problem. The problem in the client's own words, including what they call it when talking to family or community, quoted briefly where the phrasing matters. Pitfall: translating the client's words straight into diagnostic vocabulary; the clinical label belongs in the assessment, this section preserves the client's frame.
Causes and explanatory model. What the client believes causes the problem, what people close to them believe, and where those views agree or differ, including somatic, spiritual, moral, or situational explanations. Pitfall: recording the explanatory model as a curiosity and never letting it touch the formulation or the treatment conversation.
Stressors and supports. The client's account of what makes things worse and better: relationships, work and money, housing, migration circumstances, faith community, discrimination experiences. DSM-5-TR frames these as social determinants of the presentation. Pitfall: labels without function, such as writing that family is supportive without saying what the support does clinically.
Role of cultural identity. How the client describes their identity, which aspects they consider relevant to the problem, and any tension between identities or settings. Pitfall: assigning salience from demographics; the CFI asks rather than assumes, and the note should carry the client's answer, not the clinician's inference from group membership.
Self-coping and past help seeking. What the client has already tried: their own strategies, family remedies, faith practices, traditional or community healers, and prior professional care, with what helped and what did not. Pitfall: dismissing non-clinical help sources instead of documenting them; they predict engagement and often belong in the plan.
Barriers and preferences for current care. What has kept the client from care (cost, time, stigma, language, past experiences with services) and what kind of help they want now. Pitfall: eliciting preferences and then writing a plan that ignores them without comment; if the plan departs from the stated preference, document the shared reasoning.
Clinician-client relationship. The client's concerns about being understood across difference, anything they want the clinician to know about working together, and interpreter or communication arrangements going forward. Pitfall: skipping the section because it feels awkward; the interview reserves a domain for it precisely because clients rarely volunteer it.
Integration with formulation and plan. What the cultural findings change: how they bear on differential diagnosis, engagement, and the treatment plan, written as clinical reasoning that connects back to the history, mental status exam, risk assessment, and diagnosis documented in the parent evaluation. Pitfall: an orphaned CFI; auditors and payers read the diagnostic evaluation's required elements, and a cultural section that never joins the formulation adds length without clinical force.
CULTURAL FORMULATION INTERVIEW (CFI) INTAKE ADDENDUM
Client: _______________ DOB: ____________ Date: ____________
Clinician / credentials: ______________________________________
Part of (check): [ ] Intake / biopsychosocial assessment
[ ] Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation (90791)
Interview language: ____________ Interpreter: [ ] None needed
[ ] Used (name/service): _____________ [ ] Offered, declined
Components administered: [ ] Core CFI [ ] Informant Version
(informant + relationship: _________) [ ] Module(s): _______
CULTURAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
Problem in the client's own words; how they describe it to
family or community:
_______________________________________________________________
CAUSES AND EXPLANATORY MODEL
What the client believes causes it; what family or community
believe; where views differ:
_______________________________________________________________
STRESSORS AND SUPPORTS
What makes it worse; what helps (relationships, work, housing,
migration, faith, discrimination experiences):
_______________________________________________________________
ROLE OF CULTURAL IDENTITY
Identity as the client describes it; which aspects the client
ties to the problem, and how:
_______________________________________________________________
SELF-COPING AND PAST HELP SEEKING
Own strategies, family or community remedies, healers, prior
professional care; what helped, what did not:
_______________________________________________________________
BARRIERS AND PREFERENCES FOR CURRENT CARE
What has kept the client from care; the help they want now:
_______________________________________________________________
CLINICIAN-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
Client concerns about being understood; what would help the
working relationship; communication arrangements:
_______________________________________________________________
INTEGRATION WITH FORMULATION AND PLAN
How the findings above change the differential, engagement,
and the treatment plan in the parent evaluation:
_______________________________________________________________
Clinician signature / credentials: ____________ Date: ________
Supervisor co-signature (if required): ________ Date: ________Free to use and share, no signup. The PDF includes a one-page cheat sheet with section-by-section pitfalls and a pre-sign checklist; the DOCX is the blank template, ready to adapt.
Scenario: a 38-year-old engineer, referred by his primary care physician for low mood, whose clinician added the core CFI to the diagnostic evaluation. The cultural formulation interview example below shows the documented addendum, condensed but structurally complete. All details are fictional.
Client: A.T., 38 · Date: 07/14/2026 · Clinician: M. Okafor, PsyD · Context: CFI addendum to psychiatric diagnostic evaluation (90791) · Interview language: English, no interpreter needed · Components: Core CFI
Cultural definition of the problem: Client calls the problem "burnout" and says he is "running on empty." With his parents he frames it as work stress; he does not use mental health language with them, which he says would not be understood as a health matter in his family.
Causes and explanatory model: Client attributes the problem to two years of long hours combined with obligations he holds as the eldest son, including financial and caregiving support to his parents. He has read about depression and suspects it applies. He expects his parents would read the same symptoms as a lapse in discipline, which he identifies as the main reason he delayed seeking care. No somatic or spiritual attribution offered.
Stressors and supports: Stressors: father's stroke last year with client coordinating his care; mortgage; a project schedule he describes as unforgiving. Supports: spouse, who encouraged this appointment and knows he is here; younger sister, the one family member he confides in; the temple community his parents belong to, where he attends on holidays and finds the atmosphere calming though not central to his life.
Role of cultural identity: Client identifies as a second-generation Vietnamese American, English-dominant with conversational Vietnamese, and moves comfortably between settings. Asked which aspects of identity bear on the problem, he named the duty expectations attached to being the eldest son and family views of mental health care, and said language and religion do not.
Self-coping and past help seeking: Has managed by cutting sleep to keep commitments, an exercise routine now lapsed, and herbal sleep remedies his mother provides, which he continues out of respect and finds mildly helpful. One employee-assistance session three years ago felt generic and he did not return. No prior psychiatric treatment.
Barriers and preferences for current care: Barriers: family stigma as above, schedule, and a concern that counseling records could reach his employer, addressed today with a plain-language review of confidentiality and its limits. Preferences: a practical, skills-focused, time-limited approach; open to weekly therapy; hesitant about medication, citing his father's view of it as weakness and his own side-effect concerns.
Clinician-client relationship: Client asked whether the clinician would treat his family's expectations as something to argue him out of. Clinician reflected the obligations as both a value and a load; client agreed with that framing and said it fit. No communication barriers identified; client comfortable proceeding with this clinician.
Integration with formulation and plan: Findings are consistent with the major depressive disorder, moderate, documented with full history, mental status exam, and risk assessment in the diagnostic evaluation of today's date. The explanatory model (overload plus obligation, not illness) and stated preferences support cognitive behavioral therapy with behavioral activation planned around, not against, his family responsibilities. Medication education provided in neutral terms; decision deferred to the four-week review by agreement. Spouse to join a session with client's consent. Herbal remedies documented; no interaction concerns at present. Weekly sessions scheduled. M. Okafor, PsyD, signed 07/14/2026.
This sample is fictional and for educational purposes. It does not describe a real patient.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsCFI content is ordinary clinical-record content: it belongs to the designated record set, clients can access it, and in US practice they increasingly read it through patient portals, so write the cultural sections in language you would stand behind with the client reading over your shoulder, anchored in their own words. It is not protected the way psychotherapy notes are, and it follows the retention rules of the evaluation it sits in. On retention, the "HIPAA 6-year rule" is a durable myth: 45 CFR 164.316(b)(2) requires keeping HIPAA's own compliance documentation (policies, procedures, required records of actions) for 6 years; clinical records follow state law, commonly 5 to 10 years and longer for minors. Ontario's psychology college standard keeps client records at least 10 years past the client's 18th birthday or last contact, and Australia's Psychology Board expects 7 years from the last entry, or until age 25 for child clients. Pre-licensed clinicians and trainees administering the CFI document under their supervisor's co-signature rules like any other intake content.
Around the optional interview sits a short ladder of obligations that are not optional, and conflating the levels is the compliance mistake that matters. LAW: Title VI and Section 1557 require meaningful language access for people with limited English proficiency (45 CFR 92.201), which is why the interpreter line in this template is not decorative. ACCREDITATION: Joint Commission standards introduced in 2011 have hospitals identify each patient's preferred language and record race and ethnicity in the medical record (R3 Report, Issue 1). GUIDANCE: the HHS Office of Minority Health's National CLAS Standards, 15 action steps HHS describes as "a blueprint," operate at the organization level. CONVENTION: the CFI itself. Payer requirements run the same direction: the Medicare LCD for psychiatric diagnostic evaluations (L33252) expects a complete history including family and social history, a full mental status exam, a working diagnosis, and the client's ability and willingness to engage in the proposed treatment plan, and says nothing about cultural formulation. The intake elements are the requirement; the CFI is the craft you layer onto them, inside the intake note or biopsychosocial assessment.
No behavioral health audit we could locate has ever faulted a clinician for the cultural content of an intake, and the word cultural does not appear once in the OIG's audit of first-pandemic-year psychotherapy (A-09-21-03021, May 2023). What that audit did find: of roughly $1 billion Medicare paid for psychotherapy, an estimated $580 million was improper, with providers failing requirements on 128 of 216 sampled enrollee days, for reasons like undocumented time, incomplete or missing treatment plans, and missing signatures. That is the risk map around a CFI intake: the danger is never the cultural formulation, it is what the cultural formulation displaces or decorates. The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same errors most often in CFI intake reviews:
BastionGPT is specifically trained, tuned, and clinically tested on cultural formulation interview intakes.
See how clinicians use it day to day on the AI therapy notes page.
Many BastionGPT users report saving more than 90 minutes per day on documentation.
HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan. Your data is never used to train models. BastionGPT drafts, you review and sign.
No, anywhere. No US, Canadian, or Australian statute, payer policy, or accreditation standard requires a CFI or a documented cultural formulation, and no billing code attaches to it. The APA offers it as a Section III measure to support clinical judgment, "not as the sole basis for making a clinical diagnosis." The obligations that do bind sit next to it: language access for limited-English-proficient clients is federal law (45 CFR 92.201), accredited hospitals record race, ethnicity, and preferred language, and Medicare's intake documentation requirements govern the evaluation the CFI sits inside. Administering it is a clinical-quality choice, not a compliance box.
"With practice, the CFI takes approximately 20 minutes to complete," per the developers' 2020 update in Focus, and coded sessions in the DSM-5 field trial averaged 24.56 minutes. Speed comes quickly: in the field trial, clinician feasibility ratings improved significantly after a single administration and subsequent interviews took less time. The documented section usually runs 200 to 500 words inside the parent evaluation. No regulation sets a length in any of the three countries.
No. The CFI is a semi-structured interview: the published instrument pairs the questions with an italicized interviewer guide, and the peer-reviewed literature consistently describes it as semi-structured. Ask in your own words, follow up where the answers lead, and use the components that fit the client, including the Informant Version when family can add context. No DSM instruction or payer rule requires verbatim administration, completion in a single sitting, or repeating the interview at intervals. What earns its place in the record is documenting which components you used and in what language, then synthesizing the answers rather than transcribing them.
No. The Medicare LCD for psychiatric diagnostic evaluations (L33252) expects a complete history including family and social history, a full mental status exam, a working diagnosis, and an evaluation of the client's ability and willingness to participate in the proposed treatment plan. Cultural formulation appears nowhere in the LCD or its billing article, so the CFI can only add to a psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, never substitute for a required element. One adjacent code is worth knowing: the interactive complexity add-on, 90785, covers specified communication factors that complicate delivery, and the LCD's examples include evaluations mediated by an interpreter.
There is no mandated location, and the CFI's developers left the placement question open, so practice convention decides. Most clinicians document it as a labeled section or addendum of the intake note, biopsychosocial assessment, or diagnostic evaluation, which keeps the cultural findings next to the formulation they inform. Wherever it lives, it is ordinary clinical-record content in the designated record set, readable by the client and reachable by the treatment team; it does not qualify for psychotherapy-notes protection. Pick one placement for your practice and keep it consistent, so reviewers always know where to find it.
Yes, for patient care. The APA's posted instrument grants the right on its face: it can be "reproduced without permission by researchers and by clinicians for use with their patients," and the current DSM-5-TR edition is free to download from psychiatry.org, alongside the Informant Version and the supplementary modules. Any use beyond that, republishing, training products, commercial distribution, needs APA permission. So build the official wording into your EHR template if you like, but keep the note itself a synthesis of what the client said; a pasted worksheet is the transcript error auditors and supervisors flag.
Breadth versus lens. The biopsychosocial assessment is the wide container: biological, psychological, and social domains covered systematically to open an episode of care. The CFI is a focused instrument that goes deep on one axis, the client's own understanding: how they define the problem, what they believe causes it, which parts of identity matter, how they have coped and sought help, and what care they want. In practice the CFI is the strongest way to fill the social and cultural sections a biopsychosocial already contains, and its findings should flow into the same formulation, not run parallel to it. The intake note relates the same way, at lower depth.
Yes, and the evidence base is partly Canadian: Canada was a field-trial country, and the developers' update lists Canada among the places the CFI has been evaluated. In neither country is it mandated. Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action 23 and 24 direct governments and medical and nursing schools to provide cultural competency training, obligations aimed at institutions rather than individual chart documentation, and Ontario's psychology college expects client records kept at least 10 years past age 18 or last contact. In Australia, a July 2026 search of the MBS for cultural formulation returns no items; the funded planning documents are the GP Mental Health Treatment Plan items (2700, 2701, 2715, 2717), and hospital accreditation carries separate cultural-safety and identity-recording actions under the NSQHS Standards. Australian records are kept 7 years, or to age 25 for child clients.
Yes. Dictate after the session, paste a transcript, or give it bullets, and it drafts the addendum organized by the four CFI domains, preserves the client's own phrasing where it carries clinical meaning, writes the integration paragraph that connects the findings to formulation and plan, and flags anything the parent evaluation still needs before you sign, such as an undocumented interpreter or a preference the plan never addresses. BastionGPT is HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan, and your data is never used to train models.
Educational content, not legal or billing advice. Sample notes are fictional. Follow your organization's policies and your board, payer, and jurisdiction requirements.