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.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- '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 · 2026Article
- Understanding compulsory community treatment across Australian jurisdictions: insights from three different data sources.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Factors influencing the outcomes of Community Treatment Orders: state-wide study using linked administrative health data from New South Wales, Australia.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- The contribution ofBJPsych open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.