Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders' opinions.
attitude of health personnel
community treatment order
family
involuntary treatment
outpatient compulsory treatment
personal autonomy
personal satisfaction
supervised community treatment
Journal
Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
04
08
2022
accepted:
18
10
2022
entrez:
21
11
2022
pubmed:
22
11
2022
medline:
22
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT. This integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT. We performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar. We found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication. Stakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients' freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Multiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT.
Aim
UNASSIGNED
This integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Stakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients' freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36405930
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1011961
pmc: PMC9669570
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1011961Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 de Waardt, van Melle, Widdershoven, Bramer, van der Heijden, Rugkåsa and Mulder.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Psychiatr Serv. 2004 Jul;55(7):780-5
pubmed: 15232017
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Jul;104(3):240-3
pubmed: 27366130
Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Dec;177:563
pubmed: 11102334
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2019 Mar;53(3):228-235
pubmed: 29485289
Can J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct;64(10):726-735
pubmed: 30895806
Front Psychiatry. 2019 May 20;10:349
pubmed: 31164842
Health Soc Care Community. 2002 Sep;10(5):361-9
pubmed: 12390222
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016 May;51(5):747-55
pubmed: 26873613
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;5(12):1013-1022
pubmed: 30391280
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD004408
pubmed: 25474592
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 5;10(3):e035121
pubmed: 32139493
Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1990 May;41(5):537-40
pubmed: 2347570
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):762
pubmed: 29162096
Health Soc Care Community. 2013 Sep;21(5):509-18
pubmed: 23551766
Rev Esp Sanid Penit. 2020 Jan-Apr;22(1):39-45
pubmed: 32406480
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2015 Aug;36(8):583-91
pubmed: 26379132
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Apr 18;18(1):290
pubmed: 29669558
Cult Med Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;44(4):544-564
pubmed: 32246246
Health Expect. 2021 Oct;24(5):1859-1867
pubmed: 34382300
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 23;15:409
pubmed: 26400028
Australas Psychiatry. 2015 Apr;23(2):154-7
pubmed: 25653304
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;60(5):474-81
pubmed: 23985374
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2016 Jul-Aug;47:74-8
pubmed: 27044524
J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil. 2014;13(4):350-63
pubmed: 25222837
J Ment Health. 2015 Apr;24(2):88-92
pubmed: 25642950
Australas Psychiatry. 2014 Jun 24;22(4):345-351
pubmed: 24963099
Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;65(7):484-491
pubmed: 31818137
Psychiatr Q. 2017 Sep;88(3):611-621
pubmed: 27837467
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2006 Nov-Dec;29(6):516-24
pubmed: 17083974
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2004 Oct;38(10):836-41
pubmed: 15369543
Health Soc Care Community. 2009 Sep;17(5):504-13
pubmed: 19456902
Health Soc Care Community. 2014 Sep;22(5):506-14
pubmed: 24703340
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2015 Mar;36(3):209-16
pubmed: 25898132
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2018 Mar - Apr;57:122-130
pubmed: 29548499
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 11;10:414
pubmed: 31244699
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018 Jul;45(4):565-574
pubmed: 29285729
J Ment Health. 2018 Apr;27(2):97-102
pubmed: 27461530
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2021 Jul;55(7):650-665
pubmed: 32921145
Can J Psychiatry. 2000 Feb;45(1):79-81
pubmed: 10696494
BJPsych Int. 2019 Nov;16(4):83-86
pubmed: 32167079
J Adv Nurs. 2005 Dec;52(5):546-53
pubmed: 16268861
Ir J Psychol Med. 2010 Jun;27(2):66-71
pubmed: 30282222
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 24;20(1):80
pubmed: 32093641
Psychol Public Policy Law. 2003 Mar-Jun;9(1-2):70-93
pubmed: 16700137
Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Jun;160(6):1139-46
pubmed: 12777273
J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Oct;106(4):531-541
pubmed: 30271302
Int J Equity Health. 2014 Sep 06;13(1):69
pubmed: 25213210
Health Soc Care Community. 2016 Nov;24(6):e181-e190
pubmed: 26290439
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 Sep - Oct;66:101453
pubmed: 31706379
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1989;17(1):15-24
pubmed: 2706330
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;53(6):597-606
pubmed: 29626237