Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34991772›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2022

Impact of introducing capacity-based mental health legislation on the use of community treatment orders in Norway: case registry study.

Georg Høyer, Olav Nyttingnes, Jorun Rugkåsa, Ekaterina Sharashova, Tone Breines Simonsen, Anne Høye, Henriette Riley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2022. 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
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mental health plans and policies across the WHO European region.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Georg HøyerDivision of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway; and Department of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
Olav NyttingnesHealth Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Norway; and R&D Department, Division of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Norway.
Jorun RugkåsaHealth Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Norway; and Centre for Care Research, University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5842-2845
Ekaterina SharashovaDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
Tone Breines SimonsenHealth Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Norway.
Anne HøyeDepartment of Clinical Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway; and Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway.
Henriette RileyDivision of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, University Hospital of North Norway, Norway; and Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2635-7510
Akershus University Hospital · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2017, a capacity-based criterion was added to the Norwegian Mental Health Act, stating that those with capacity to consent to treatment cannot be subjected to involuntary care unless there is risk to themselves or others. This was expected to reduce incidence and prevalence rates, and the duration of episodes of involuntary care, in particular regarding community treatment orders (CTOs).

aimsThe aim was to investigate whether the capacity-based criterion had the expected impact on the use of CTOs.

methodThis retrospective case register study included two catchment areas serving 16% of the Norwegian population (aged ≥18). In total, 760 patients subject to 921 CTOs between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included to compare the use of CTOs 2 years before and 2 years after the legal reform.

resultsCTO incidence rates and duration did not change after the reform, whereas prevalence rates were significantly reduced. This was explained by a sharp increase in termination of CTOs in the year of the reform, after which it reduced and settled on a slightly higher leven than before the reform. We found an unexpected significant increase in the use of involuntary treatment orders for patients on CTOs after the reform.

conclusionsThe expected impact on CTO use of introducing a capacity-based criterion in the Norwegian Mental Health Act was not confirmed by our study. Given the existing challenges related to defining and assessing decision-making capacity, studies examining the validity of capacity assessments and their impact on the use of coercion in clinical practice are urgently needed.

Indexed as

Capacity-based mental health lawcommunity treatment orderscompulsionmental health legislation

Identifiers

PMID34991772
PMCPMC8811783
OpenAlexW4205386231

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.