ArticleBMC health services research2024
Compulsory treatment at home: an interview study exploring the experiences of an early group of patients, relatives and mental-health workers.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compulsory Psychiatric Treatment at Home in the Netherlands: A Case Report.Case reports in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Psychiatric Risk Governance Across Jurisdictions: A Comparative Analysis of Involuntary Treatment, Community Treatment Orders, and Forensic Mental Health Services.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen introduced in 2020, the Netherlands' Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act included provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH). Although CCT has been incorporated into mental health care in many countries, its effectiveness is debated. We know of no other countries in which CTH has been adopted. The aim of this study is to evaluate how an early group of participants experienced CTH. They were drawn from three stakeholder groups: patients, relatives and mental-health workers.
methodsIn total, 17 open interviews were conducted with six patients, five relatives and six mental-health workers. All had experience with CTH. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews.
resultsFive themes were identified: 1). Reasons for applying for a court order with options for CTH. The reasons included preventing harm, avoiding hospitalization, and providing a safety net. 2.) Participants' experiences with CTH in practice. The four most noteworthy experiences were related to the process of applying for a court order; compulsory home visits and the compulsory use of medication; the involvement of relatives during treatment; and the influence of CTH on the relationship between patients and relatives. 3.) The advantages and disadvantages of CTH. The most important advantages were avoiding hospitalization; improving medication adherence; facilitating easy access to care; early signaling of deterioration; early intervention; and regained autonomy. The most important disadvantages were restricted autonomy; fewer options for monitoring compared to hospitalization; and problems regarding control of patient behavior. 4.) Participants' preferences. All preferred CTH to hospitalization. 5.) Participants' suggestions for improving CTH. These included the need not only to provide patients with better information, but also to improve the involvement of relatives during treatment.
conclusionThe interviewees found that CTH might help to avoid hospitalization by providing stakeholders with more options for arranging effective care at home. Although this suggests that initial experiences of CTH under the new Dutch mental health law were positive, it is still uncertain whether CTH as currently implemented really differs from CCT.
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.