Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39078088›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2024

Latest findings highlight the continuing uncertainty over the utility of compulsory psychiatric treatment in the community.

Steve Kisely, Tessa Zirnsak, Chris Maylea, Claudia Bull, Lisa Brophy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Steve KiselyThe University of Queensland School of Medicine, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4021-2924
Tessa ZirnsakSocial Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Chris MayleaLaw School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Claudia BullThe University of Queensland School of Medicine, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4064-652X
Lisa BrophySocial Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6460-3490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community treatment orders (CTOs) have been introduced in many jurisdictions with evidence of increasing use over time as well as a disproportionate use in marginalised populations. Rates of CTOs also vary widely, both internationally and within the same country, for reasons that are poorly understood. This is despite evidence for effectiveness being mixed and, as a result, there have been calls for a reappraisal of this type of legislation. In the UK, a parliamentary committee on reforming the existing Mental Health Act recommended abolishing CTOs other than for people in the criminal justice system. Two recent Australian papers based on large state-wide administrative data-sets give conflicting results and came to markedly different conclusions regarding the desirability of reducing CTO rates. The debate about the effectiveness of CTOs therefore remains unresolved. This is of concern beyond Australia, as other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland and Canada have similar clinician-initiated orders.

Indexed as

administrative health dataCommunity treatment orderscompulsory community treatmentmental health lawout-patient commitment

Identifiers

PMID39078088
PMCPMC11698136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.