Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26541546›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2015

A qualitative study examining the presence and consequences of moral framings in patients' and mental health workers' experiences of community treatment orders.

Sharon Lawn, Toni Delany, Mariastella Pulvirenti, Ann Smith, John McMillan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 'Traumatic to Say the Least; It Still Affects Me': Consumer Perspectives on Community Treatment Orders in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Ensuring compulsory treatment is used as a last resort: a narrative review of the knowledge about Community Treatment Orders.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Trust and Community Treatment Orders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sharon LawnFlinders Human Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry, Flinders University, Flinders Drive, Adelaide, 5042, Australia. sharon.lawn@flinders.edu.au.
Toni DelanySouthgate Institute for Health, Society and Equity, Flinders University, Flinders Drive, Adelaide, 5042, Australia.
Mariastella PulvirentiDiscipline of Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders Drive, Adelaide, 5042, Australia.
Ann SmithCARE Inc, Adelaide, 5162, Australia.
John McMillanThe Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, Frederick Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand.
Flinders University · AUUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental health recovery involves acknowledging the importance of building the person's capacity for agency. This might be particularly important for patients on community treatment orders (CTOs - which involve enforced treatment for their mental illness), given limited international evidence for their effectiveness and underlying concerns about the use of coercion by workers and systems of care towards this population of people with mental illness.

methodsThis study sought to understand how the meaning of CTOs is constructed and experienced, from the perspective of patients on CTOs and workers directly administering CTOs. Qualitative interviews were conducted with South Australian community mental health patients (n = 8) and mental health workers (n = 10) in 2013-14. During thematic analysis of data, assisted by NVIVO software, the researchers were struck by the language used by both groups of participants and so undertook an examination of the moral framings apparent within the data.

resultsMoral framing was apparent in participants' constructions and evaluations of the CTO experience as positive, negative or justifiable. Most patient participants appeared to use moral framing to: try to understand why they were placed on a CTO; make sense of the experience of being on a CTO; and convey the lessons they have learnt. Worker participants appeared to use moral framing to justify the imposition of care. Empathy was part of this, as was patients' positive right to services and treatment, which they believed would only occur for these patients via a CTO. Workers positioned themselves as trying to put themselves in the patients' shoes as a way of acting virtuously towards them, softening the coercive stick approach. Four themes were identified: explicit moral framing; best interests of the patient; lessons learned by the patient; and, empathy.

conclusionsExperiences of CTOs are multi-layered, and depend critically upon empathy and reflection on the relationship between what is done and how it is done. This includes explicit examination of the moral framing present in everyday interactions between mental health workers and their patients in order to overcome the paradox of the moral grey zone between caring and controlling. It suggests a need for workers to receive ongoing empathy training.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommitment of Persons with Psychiatric DisordersMoralsAdultAttitude to HealthCoercionCommunity Mental Health ServicesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMental DisordersQualitative ResearchSouth Australia

Identifiers

PMID26541546
PMCPMC4635603
OpenAlexW2120254206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.