Watson C G, Brown K, Tilleskjor C, Jacobs L, Pucel J
Research Service, Veterans Administration Medical Center, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301.
J Clin Psychol. 1988 Jul;44(4):573-81. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198807)44:4<573::aid-jclp2270440414>3.0.co;2-m.
The outcomes of inpatient alcoholics who reported that they had been coerced into treatment by commitment or pressure from others were compared in a follow-up study to those of alcoholics who described themselves as voluntary admissions. Ten assessments of control over drinking, number of drinking days in the past week, and intoxication since previous appraisal were made by collaterals between 2 weeks and 18 months after treatment. Even though the data were analyzed in several ways, the number of significant differences did not exceed chance expectations. This suggests that the prognoses of alcoholics who present for treatment under court order or interpersonal pressure were not substantially different from those of men who claim to have entered without coercion. However, the differences between the groups' Control over Drinking ratings, even though not statistically significant, consistently favored the coerced admissions, which raises the possibility that their outcomes may have been slightly better than those of the voluntary admissions.
在一项随访研究中，将那些报告称自己是因他人的强制承诺或压力而被送入治疗的住院酗酒者的治疗结果，与那些称自己是自愿入院的酗酒者的治疗结果进行了比较。在治疗后的2周内至18个月期间，由旁证对饮酒控制情况、过去一周的饮酒天数以及自上次评估以来的醉酒情况进行了10次评估。尽管对数据进行了多种方式的分析，但显著差异的数量并未超过偶然预期。这表明，在法庭命令或人际压力下接受治疗的酗酒者的预后，与那些声称是在没有强制情况下入院的男性酗酒者的预后没有实质性差异。然而，两组在饮酒控制评分上的差异，尽管在统计学上不显著，但一直有利于被强制入院者，这增加了他们的治疗结果可能比自愿入院者略好的可能性。
