Observational studyBMC psychiatry2016
Recall of patients on community treatment orders over three years in the OCTET CTO cohort.
Observational study in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community treatment orders in England: review of usage from national data.BJPsych bulletin · 2018Article
- Carer involvement in compulsory out-patient psychiatric care in England.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- What does being on a community treatment orders entail? A 3-year follow-up of the OCTET CTO cohort.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomised studies consistently show that Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) do not have the intended effect of preventing relapse and readmissions of patients with severe and enduring mental illness. Critics suggest this in part can be explained by RCTs studying newly introduced CTO regimes and that patients therefore were not brought back to hospital for short-term observations ('recall') as frequently as intended. Our purpose was (i) to test the hypothesis that CTO practice as regards recall of patients to hospital in England and Wales was as rigorous under the OCTET trial period as in current routine use and (ii) to investigate the reasons for and outcomes of recalls and whether this changed over time.
methodThirty six-month observational prospective study of 198 patients in the OCTET Follow-up Study.
resultsForty percent of patients were recalled, 19 % more than once. This is in line with current national use. Deterioration in clinical condition was the most common reason for recalls (49 %), and 68 % of recalls resulted in revocation of the order (i.e., retention in hospital under compulsion). This pattern remained stable over time.
conclusionThe use of recall cannot explain why RCTs have not confirmed any benefits from CTOs, and their continued use should be reconsidered.
trial registrationThe OCTET Trial was retrospectively registered on 12 November 2009 ( ISRCTN73110773 ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.