Community treatment orders: towards a new research agenda

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to report on a half-day multi-stakeholder symposium on community treatment orders (CTOs) hosted by the Melbourne Social Equity Institute (MSEI), which identified research gaps and opportunities, and produced an agreed agenda for future CTO research.

Methods:

The MSEI convened a symposium for 22 experts in CTO research to discuss research priorities in this field in Australasia. An independent moderator elicited views and recommendations and produced a report detailing possible research projects.

Results:

Research on CTOs is contentious and there is a need to gather and examine information regarding both their use and utility. Due to the complexities involved, it was agreed that research should be undertaken in partnership with persons with had lived experience of mental health problems, clinicians, policymakers and other interdisciplinary stakeholders. Five key areas for future investigation were identified.

Conclusions:

The issues and recommendations arising from the symposium should shape the scope, nature and conduct of future research directions in the field.

Keywords

community treatment orders compulsory treatment mental health legislation civil commitment laws human rights

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rugkåsa

Effectiveness of community treatment orders: the international evidence. Can J Psychiatry 2016; 61: 15–24.

Newton-Howes

Ryan

CJ.

The use of community treatment orders in competent patients is not justified. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 210: 311–312.

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Concluding observations on the initial report of Australia, 10th session. UN Doc CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1, 4 October 2013.

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Concluding observations on the initial report of New Zealand, 12th session. UN Doc CRPD/C/NZL/CO/1, 31 October 2014.

O’Brien

AJ.

Community treatment orders in New Zealand: regional variability and international comparisons. Australas Psychiatry 2014; 22: 352–356.

Tasmanian Government. Tasmania’s Mental Health Act 2013: a guide for clinicians. Hobart: Department of Health and Human Services, 2014.

Burns

Rugkåsa

Yeeles

et al . Coercion in mental health: a trial of the effectiveness of community treatment orders and an investigation of informal coercion in community mental health care. Programme Grants for Applied Research. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2016.

Oliver

Snowball sampling. In: Jupp

(ed) The SAGE dictionary of social research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2006, p.282.

Wheeldon

Åhlberg

Visualizing social science research: maps, methods, and meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2012.

10.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. State and territory community mental health services – Table CMHC.23, http://mhsa.aihw.gov.au/services/community-care/ (2016, accessed 2 June 2017).

11.

Light

Kerridge

Ryan

et al . Community treatment orders: rates and patterns of use. Australas Psychiatry 2012; 20: 478–482.

12.

Ministry of Health, New Zealand. Office of the Director of Mental Health Annual Reports, https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/corporate-publications/mental-health-annual-reports (2006–2015, accessed 2 June 2017).

13.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, GA Res 61/106, opened for signature 30 March 2007, UN Doc A/Res/61/611, entered into force 3 May 2008.

14.

Department of Health, Commonwealth of Australia. A national framework for recovery-oriented mental health services, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-pubs-n-recovgde-toc (2013, accessed 19 June 2017).

15.

Morgan

Patient and public involvement in research, why not?, http://mcpin.org/wp-content/uploads/talking-point-paper-2.pdf (2016, accessed 19 June 2017).

16.

Bond

Drake

RE.

The critical ingredients of assertive community treatment. World Psychiatry 2015; 14: 240–242.

17.

Dawson

Lawn

Simpson

et al . Care planning for consumers on community treatment orders: an integrative literature review. BMC Psychiatry 2016; 16: 394.

18.

Burns

Rugkåsa

Molodynksi

et al . Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis: a randomised controlled trial (OCTET). Lancet 2013; 381: 1627–1633.

19.

Swartz

Swanson

Wagner

et al . Can involuntary outpatient commitment reduce hospital recidivism? Findings from a randomized trial with severely mentally ill individuals. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 1968–1975.

20.

Steadman

Gounis

Dennis

et al . Assessing the New York City involuntary outpatient commitment pilot program. Psychiatric Serv 2001; 52: 330–336.

21.

Swartz

Swanson

JW.

Randomised controlled trials and outpatient commitment. Lancet Psychiatry 2017; 4(12): e30.

22.

Dawson

Community treatment orders: international comparisons, http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/otago036152.pdf (2005, accessed 20 December 2017).

23.

Brophy

McDermott

what’s driving involuntary treatment in the community? The social, policy, legal and ethical context. Australas Psychiatry 2003; 11(suppl 1): S84–S88.