ArticleBJPsych open2026
Availability and restrictiveness of community treatment orders across 33 European countries.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity treatment orders (CTOs) permit compulsory mental healthcare outside hospital. Such orders have become part of an increasing number of mental health laws, even if there is a lack of consensus on their effects, negative personal experiences, diverging ethical positions and expectations that governments should reduce or abandon coercive practices. It is therefore surprising that there is limited research describing the availability and restrictiveness of CTO legislation, and we found no comprehensive European study. Such studies could contribute to clarification of differing positions and, through that, informing further research and discussions of how to promote voluntary options in clinical practice.
aimsTo establish the availability of CTO legislation across Europe, and how regimes in different ways restrict the person.
methodData were collected from 33 European countries through a network of researchers and practitioners, and links to relevant legislation were provided.
resultsWe found 13 CTO regimes across the 33 countries: two-thirds therefore managed without them. Despite some variation, most law texts specified restrictions related to legal criteria, enforcement mechanisms and safeguards. Restrictions on the person were often specified in separate tailored plans, and most regimes permitted indefinite renewals, which means that the duration of restrictions can be ascertained only in retrospect.
conclusionsCTO law texts preclude scrutiny of overall restrictiveness, which might add to current uncertainties regarding the proportionality of CTOs and their role in balancing individuals' rights to both autonomy and care. The current policy drive towards community care should not automatically lead to new CTO regimes until their effectiveness and
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.