Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116594›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2025

Variations between, and within, jurisdictions in the use of community treatment orders and other compulsory community treatment: study of 402 060 people across four Australian states.

Steve Kisely, Claudia Bull, Tessa Zirnsak, Vrinda Edan, Morgan Gould, Sharon Lawn, Edwina Light, Chris Maylea, Giles Newton-Howes, Christopher James Ryan and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. '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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The contribution ofBJPsych open · 2025
    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

12 authors.

Steve KiselySouthern Clinical School, The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4021-2924
Claudia BullSouthern Clinical School, The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4064-652X
Tessa ZirnsakSocial Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Australia.
Vrinda EdanMedicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Morgan GouldSocial Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Australia.
Sharon LawnLived Experience Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Edwina LightFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia.
Chris MayleaLaw School, La Trobe University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3688-0487
Giles Newton-HowesDepartment of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5167-1213
Christopher James RyanDiscipline of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2158-9427
Penelope WellerGraduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4659-3561
Lisa BrophyThe ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6460-3490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of compulsory community treatment (CCT) in Australia is some of the highest worldwide despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Even within Australia, use varies widely across jurisdictions despite general similarities in legislation and health services. However, there is much less information on whether variation occurs within the same jurisdiction.

aimsTo measure variations in the use of CCT in a standardised way across the following four Australian jurisdictions: Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria. We also investigated associated sociodemographic variables.

methodsWe used aggregated administrative data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

resultsThere were data on 402 060 individuals who were in contact with specialist mental health services, of whom 51 351 (12.8%) were receiving CCT. Percentages varied from 8% in NSW to 17.6% in South Australia. There were also wide variations within jurisdictions. In NSW, prevalence ranged from 2% to 13%, in Victoria from 6% to 24%, in Queensland from 11% to 25% and in South Australia from 6% to 36%. People in contact with services who were male, single and aged between 25 and 44 years old were significantly more likely to be subject to CCT, as were people living in metropolitan areas or those born outside Oceania.

conclusionsThere are marked variations in the use of CCT both within and between Australian jurisdictions. It is unclear how much of this variation is determined by clinical need and these findings may be of relevance to jurisdictions with similar clinician-initiated orders.

Indexed as

administrative dataCommunity treatment orderscompulsory community treatmentout-patient commitment

Identifiers

PMID40116594
PMCPMC12001916

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.