The utility of outpatient commitment: Reduced-risks of victimization and crime perpetration.
Adult
Australia
Commitment of Mentally Ill
/ standards
Community Mental Health Services
/ standards
Crime
/ statistics & numerical data
Crime Victims
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Male
Mental Disorders
/ epidemiology
Middle Aged
Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Community treatment orders
Forensic psychiatry
Outpatient civil commitment
Journal
European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists
ISSN: 1778-3585
Titre abrégé: Eur Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9111820
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
11
09
2018
revised:
06
12
2018
accepted:
08
12
2018
pubmed:
18
1
2019
medline:
18
4
2019
entrez:
18
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Outpatient civil commitment (OCC) provisions, community treatment orders (CTOs) in Australia and Commonwealth nations, are part of mental health law worldwide. This study considers whether and by what means OCC provides statutorily required "needed-treatment" addressing two aspects of its legal mandate to protect the safety of self (exclusive of deliberate-self-harm) and others. Over a 12.4-year period, records of hospitalized-psychiatric-patients, 11,424 with CTO-assignment and 16,161 without CTO-assignment were linked to police-records. Imminent-safety-threats included perpetrations and victimizations by homicides, rapes, assaults/abductions, and robberies. "Need for treatment" determinations were validated independently by Health of the Nations Scale (HoNOS) severity-score-profiles. Logistic regressions, with propensity-score- adjustment and control for 46 potential confounding-factors, were used to evaluate the association of CTO-assignment with occurrence-risk of perpetrations and victimizations. CTO-assignment was associated with reduced safety-risk: 17% in initial-perpetrations, 11% in initial-victimizations, and 22% for repeat-perpetrations. Each ten-community-treatment-days in interaction with CTO-assignment was associated with a 3.4% reduced-perpetration-risk. CTO-initiated-re-hospitalization was associated with a 13% reduced-initial-perpetration-risk, a 17% reduced-initial-victimization-risk, and a 22% reduced-repeat-victimization-risk. All risk-estimates appear to be the unique contributions of the CTO, CTO-initiated-re-hospitalization, or the provision of ten-community-treatment-days-i.e. after accounting for the influence of prior crimes and victimizations, ethnic-bias, neighborhood disadvantage and other between-group differences in the analysis. CTO assignment's association with reduced criminal-victimization and perpetration-risk, in conjunction with requiring participation in needed-treatment via re-hospitalization and community-service, adds support to the conclusion that OCC is to some extent fulfilling its legal objectives related to protecting safety of self (exclusive of deliberate-self-harm), and others.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Outpatient civil commitment (OCC) provisions, community treatment orders (CTOs) in Australia and Commonwealth nations, are part of mental health law worldwide. This study considers whether and by what means OCC provides statutorily required "needed-treatment" addressing two aspects of its legal mandate to protect the safety of self (exclusive of deliberate-self-harm) and others.
METHOD
Over a 12.4-year period, records of hospitalized-psychiatric-patients, 11,424 with CTO-assignment and 16,161 without CTO-assignment were linked to police-records. Imminent-safety-threats included perpetrations and victimizations by homicides, rapes, assaults/abductions, and robberies. "Need for treatment" determinations were validated independently by Health of the Nations Scale (HoNOS) severity-score-profiles. Logistic regressions, with propensity-score- adjustment and control for 46 potential confounding-factors, were used to evaluate the association of CTO-assignment with occurrence-risk of perpetrations and victimizations.
RESULTS
CTO-assignment was associated with reduced safety-risk: 17% in initial-perpetrations, 11% in initial-victimizations, and 22% for repeat-perpetrations. Each ten-community-treatment-days in interaction with CTO-assignment was associated with a 3.4% reduced-perpetration-risk. CTO-initiated-re-hospitalization was associated with a 13% reduced-initial-perpetration-risk, a 17% reduced-initial-victimization-risk, and a 22% reduced-repeat-victimization-risk. All risk-estimates appear to be the unique contributions of the CTO, CTO-initiated-re-hospitalization, or the provision of ten-community-treatment-days-i.e. after accounting for the influence of prior crimes and victimizations, ethnic-bias, neighborhood disadvantage and other between-group differences in the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
CTO assignment's association with reduced criminal-victimization and perpetration-risk, in conjunction with requiring participation in needed-treatment via re-hospitalization and community-service, adds support to the conclusion that OCC is to some extent fulfilling its legal objectives related to protecting safety of self (exclusive of deliberate-self-harm), and others.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30654319
pii: S0924-9338(18)30207-4
doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.12.001
pmc: PMC7202380
mid: NIHMS1582452
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
97-104Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : T32 MH018828
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Références
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1999 Sep;23(9):1492-501
pubmed: 10512315
Psychiatr Serv. 2003 Sep;54(9):1253-7
pubmed: 12954942
Am J Psychiatry. 1999 Dec;156(12):1968-75
pubmed: 10588412
Psychiatr Serv. 1999 Jan;50(1):62-8
pubmed: 9890581
Psychiatr Serv. 2010 Feb;61(2):137-43
pubmed: 20123818
Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2005 Apr 19;2(1):8
pubmed: 15840170
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018 Jul;45(4):565-574
pubmed: 29285729
Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Nov;57(11):1607-13
pubmed: 17085609
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;43(1):37-44
pubmed: 17960314
Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;4(12):e26-e28
pubmed: 29179938
Schizophr Bull. 1997;23(4):685-96
pubmed: 9366004
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;62(8):911-21
pubmed: 16061769
Br J Psychiatry. 1995 Aug;167(2):220-7
pubmed: 7582673
Br J Psychiatry. 1995 Nov;167(5):589-95
pubmed: 8564313
Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Mar;52(3):330-6
pubmed: 11239100
Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Aug;159(8):1403-11
pubmed: 12153835
Soc Work. 2001 Apr;46(2):115-24
pubmed: 11329641
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Dec 1;68(12):1255-1261
pubmed: 28760099
Australas Psychiatry. 2008 Oct;16(5):340-3
pubmed: 18608155
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012 Sep;47(9):1449-58
pubmed: 22072224
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Mar;42(2):139-46
pubmed: 24756929
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Dec 1;68(12):1247-1254
pubmed: 28760100
Science. 1997 Aug 15;277(5328):918-24
pubmed: 9252316
CMAJ. 2013 Jan 8;185(1):E50-6
pubmed: 23148054
Australas Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;17(2):141-8
pubmed: 19016362
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 May;62(5):504-8
pubmed: 21532076
Psychiatr Serv. 1998 Sep;49(9):1212-7
pubmed: 9735965
J Health Soc Behav. 1995 Jun;36(2):122-37
pubmed: 9113138
Psychiatr Serv. 1999 Nov;50(11):1427-34
pubmed: 10543851
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1995 Mar;30(2):78-84
pubmed: 7754420
J Eval Clin Pract. 2017 Feb;23(1):185-192
pubmed: 28090729
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2012 May 28;6(1):4
pubmed: 22640939
Br J Psychiatry. 1998 Jan;172:11-8
pubmed: 9534825
Lancet. 2013 May 11;381(9878):1627-33
pubmed: 23537605