ArticleBJPsych open2026
Understanding compulsory community treatment across Australian jurisdictions: insights from three different data sources.
Article in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompulsory Community Treatment (CCT) is any intervention that mandates community psychiatric care. Despite Australia's high use of CCT compared to other countries, there is no standardised national reporting framework, limiting transparency and comparability across jurisdictions.
aimsTo determine rates of CCT orders per 100 000 population, individuals subject to CCT per 100 000 population and the proportion of all community mental healthcare contacts that were involuntary between 2016-2017 and 2023-2024. We also sought to identify and document differences in reporting practices across CCT reporting bodies.
methodPublicly available data were extracted from annual reports of state and territory Mental Health Review Tribunals or Civil and Administrative Tribunals, Offices of the Chief Psychiatrist and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Rates of CCT orders per 100 000 population, individuals subject to CCT per 100 000 population and the proportion of all community mental healthcare contacts that were involuntary were calculated and compared across jurisdictions.
resultsMarked differences were identified in CCT terminology, reporting scope and data completeness across jurisdictions and reporting bodies. Only three jurisdictions reported the number of individuals subject to CCT and none reported incidence data. Rates of CCT increased in most jurisdictions, except Western Australia, which showed a decline and the lowest rate of all jurisdictions. The proportion of involuntary community contacts ranged from 3 to 26% nationally.
conclusionsAustralia's fragmented CCT reporting landscape impedes accurate national monitoring. A standardised national CCT data-set that incorporates prevalence and incidence indicators is urgently needed to enable transparent, comparable reporting.
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.