Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31244699›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2019

Community Treatment Orders and Supported Decision-Making.

Lisa Brophy, Renata Kokanovic, Jacinthe Flore, Bernadette McSherry, Helen Herrman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. '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
  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. Article
  8. Review
  9. Community treatment orders and care planning: How is engagement and decision-making enacted?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  10. The role of the Mental Health Tribunal in setting duration of compulsory treatment in Victoria.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2021
    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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa BrophySchool of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University.
Renata KokanovicSocial and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jacinthe FloreSocial and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Bernadette McSherryMelbourne Social Equity Institute and Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Helen HerrmanOrygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
RMIT University · AULa Trobe University · AUOrygen Youth Health · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents findings from an interdisciplinary project undertaken in Victoria, Australia, investigating the barriers and facilitators to supported decision-making (SDM) for people living with diagnoses including schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and severe depression; family members supporting them; and mental health practitioners, including psychiatrists. We considered how SDM can be used to align Australian laws and practice with international human rights obligations. The project examined the experiences, views, and preferences of consumers of mental health services, including people with experiences of being on Community Treatment Orders (CTOs), in relation to enabling SDM in mental health service delivery. It also examined the perspectives of informal family members or carers and mental health practitioners. Victoria currently has high rates of use of CTOs, and the emphasis on SDM in the Mental Health Act, 2014, is proposed as one method for reducing coercion within the mental health system and working towards more recovery-oriented practice. Our findings cautiously suggest that SDM may contribute to reducing the use of CTOs, encouraging less use of coercive practices, and improving the experience of people who are subject to these orders, through greater respect for their views and preferences. Nonetheless, the participants in our study expressed an often ambivalent stance towards CTOs. In particular, the emphasis on medication as the primary treatment option and the limited communication about distressing side effects, alongside lack of choice of medication, was a primary source of concern. Fears, particularly among staff, about the risk of harm to self and others, and stigma attached to complex mental health conditions experienced by consumers and their families, represent important overarching concerns in the implementation of CTOs. Supporting the decision-making of people on CTOs, respecting their views and preferences about treatment, and moving towards reducing the use of CTOs require system-wide transformation and a significant shift in values and practice across mental health service delivery.

Indexed as

autonomycoercioncommunity treatment orderspsychiatrysupported decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31244699
PMCPMC6580382
OpenAlexW2950099942

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.