The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

S. Kisely, Tessa-May Zirnsak, Amy Corderoy, C. Ryan, Lisa Brophy
{"title":"The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.","authors":"S. Kisely, Tessa-May Zirnsak, Amy Corderoy, C. Ryan, Lisa Brophy","doi":"10.1177/00048674241246436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIMS\nCommunity treatment orders have been introduced in many jurisdictions with increasing use over time. We conducted a rapid umbrella review to synthesise the quantitative and qualitative evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of their potential harms and benefits.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO for relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Where available, participants on community treatment orders were compared with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023398767) and the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zeq35).\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn all, 17 publications from 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative synthesis of data from different systematic reviews was not possible. There were mixed findings on the effects of community treatment orders on health service use, and clinical, psychosocial or forensic outcomes. Whereas uncontrolled evidence suggested benefits, results were more equivocal from controlled studies and randomised controlled trials showed no effect. Any changes in health service use took several years to become apparent. There was evidence that better targeting of community treatment order use led to improved outcomes. Although there were other benefits, such as in mortality, findings were mostly rated as suggestive using predetermined and standardised criteria. Qualitative findings suggested that family members and clinicians were generally positive about the effect of community treatment orders but those subjected to them were more ambivalent. Any possible harms were under-researched, particularly in quantitative designs.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe evidence for the benefits of community treatment orders remains inconclusive. At the very least, use should be better targeted to people most likely to benefit. More quantitative research on harms is indicated.","PeriodicalId":117457,"journal":{"name":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry","volume":"122 44","pages":"48674241246436"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674241246436","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AIMS Community treatment orders have been introduced in many jurisdictions with increasing use over time. We conducted a rapid umbrella review to synthesise the quantitative and qualitative evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of their potential harms and benefits. METHODS A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO for relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Where available, participants on community treatment orders were compared with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023398767) and the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zeq35). RESULTS In all, 17 publications from 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative synthesis of data from different systematic reviews was not possible. There were mixed findings on the effects of community treatment orders on health service use, and clinical, psychosocial or forensic outcomes. Whereas uncontrolled evidence suggested benefits, results were more equivocal from controlled studies and randomised controlled trials showed no effect. Any changes in health service use took several years to become apparent. There was evidence that better targeting of community treatment order use led to improved outcomes. Although there were other benefits, such as in mortality, findings were mostly rated as suggestive using predetermined and standardised criteria. Qualitative findings suggested that family members and clinicians were generally positive about the effect of community treatment orders but those subjected to them were more ambivalent. Any possible harms were under-researched, particularly in quantitative designs. CONCLUSIONS The evidence for the benefits of community treatment orders remains inconclusive. At the very least, use should be better targeted to people most likely to benefit. More quantitative research on harms is indicated.
社区治疗令对精神疾病患者的益处和危害:对系统综述和荟萃分析的快速综述。
目的许多司法管辖区都引入了社区治疗令,随着时间的推移,其使用率越来越高。我们进行了一项快速总综述,以综合系统综述和/或荟萃分析中关于其潜在危害和益处的定量和定性证据。方法对 Medline、PubMed、Embase 和 PsycINFO 进行系统检索,以查找相关的系统综述和/或荟萃分析。在有资料可查的情况下,将接受社区治疗令的参与者与接受自愿精神病治疗的对照组进行比较。本综述已在 PROSPERO (CRD42023398767) 和开放科学框架 (https://osf.io/zeq35) 上注册。结果共有 14 项研究的 17 篇文献符合纳入标准。无法对来自不同系统综述的数据进行定量综合。关于社区治疗令对医疗服务使用、临床、社会心理或法医结果的影响,研究结果不一。虽然无控制证据表明社区治疗令会带来益处,但有控制研究的结果则较为模糊,随机对照试验则显示没有效果。医疗服务使用方面的任何变化都需要几年的时间才能显现出来。有证据表明,更有针对性地使用社区治疗令会带来更好的结果。虽然也有其他益处,如降低死亡率,但使用预先确定的标准化标准,研究结果大多被评为提示性的。定性研究结果表明,家庭成员和临床医生对社区治疗令的效果普遍持肯定态度,但受治疗者的态度则较为矛盾。任何可能的危害都没有得到充分研究,特别是在定量设计中。至少,应更好地针对最有可能受益的人群使用社区治疗令。需要对危害进行更多的定量研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信