Beck N C, Houge L R, Fraps C, Perry C, Fenstemaker L
J Clin Psychol. 1984 Jan;40(1):364-71. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198401)40:1<364::aid-jclp2270400168>3.0.co;2-o.
Examined diagnostic and demographic characteristics of six groups of voluntary and committed patients (N = 300) over a 3-year period in order to assess the impact of a change in civil commitment procedures in the state of Missouri. Committed and voluntary patients differed on the basis of several demographic and behavioral variables, including diagnosis, employment status, and instances of serious physical harm recorded on admission. No differences were found between patients committed under the old law (which stipulated that the presence of "mental illness" was a sufficient criterion) and patients committed under the new law (which requires the presence of serious physical harm as an essential criterion). These findings were interpreted to suggest that, in at least some settings, clinicians were restricting commitment to cases that gave evidence of physical harm prior to the enactment of new legislation.
在三年时间里，对六组自愿和被强制收治的患者（N = 300）的诊断和人口统计学特征进行了检查，以评估密苏里州民事强制收治程序变化的影响。被强制收治和自愿收治的患者在几个人口统计学和行为变量方面存在差异，包括诊断、就业状况以及入院时记录的严重身体伤害情况。在旧法律（规定存在“精神疾病”即为充分标准）下被强制收治的患者与新法律（要求存在严重身体伤害作为基本标准）下被强制收治的患者之间未发现差异。这些发现被解释为表明，至少在某些情况下，临床医生在新立法颁布之前就将强制收治限制在有身体伤害证据的病例上。
