Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;39(2):189-93.
Christopher et al., in their study of differences between general psychiatrists and forensic psychiatrists in the evaluation of psychiatric disability relative to Social Security Disability Insurance claims, have provided useful information regarding statistically significant differences in practice and beliefs. Despite the relatively small number of participants in this unique survey study, the authors have identified important sources of potential bias among both general and forensic psychiatrists. The study also highlights the profound disconnect between the historically prevalent medical model of disability, in which treating clinicians are considered experts in assessing disability, and the actuality that most general and forensic psychiatrists lack training in disability evaluations. This misperception creates additional practical and ethics-related problems for clinicians when their patients file disability claims.
克里斯托弗等人在研究一般精神科医生和法医精神病学家在评估与社会保障残疾保险索赔相关的精神残疾方面的差异时，提供了有关实践和信念方面统计学显著差异的有用信息。尽管这项独特的调查研究参与者人数相对较少，但作者已经确定了一般和法医精神科医生中潜在偏见的重要来源。该研究还突出了残疾的历史上流行的医学模式与实际情况之间的深刻脱节，即在评估残疾方面，治疗临床医生被认为是专家，而大多数一般和法医精神科医生缺乏残疾评估方面的培训。当他们的患者提出残疾索赔时，这种误解给临床医生带来了额外的实际和伦理相关问题。
