在使用社区治疗令和其他强制性社区治疗方面,司法管辖区之间和内部的差异:对澳大利亚四个州402,060人的研究。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
BJPsych Open Pub Date : 2025-03-21 DOI:10.1192/bjo.2025.23
Steve Kisely, Claudia Bull, Tessa Zirnsak, Vrinda Edan, Morgan Gould, Sharon Lawn, Edwina Light, Chris Maylea, Giles Newton-Howes, Christopher James Ryan, Penelope Weller, Lisa Brophy
{"title":"在使用社区治疗令和其他强制性社区治疗方面,司法管辖区之间和内部的差异:对澳大利亚四个州402,060人的研究。","authors":"Steve Kisely, Claudia Bull, Tessa Zirnsak, Vrinda Edan, Morgan Gould, Sharon Lawn, Edwina Light, Chris Maylea, Giles Newton-Howes, Christopher James Ryan, Penelope Weller, Lisa Brophy","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of compulsory community treatment (CCT) in Australia is some of the highest worldwide despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Even within Australia, use varies widely across jurisdictions despite general similarities in legislation and health services. However, there is much less information on whether variation occurs within the same jurisdiction.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To measure variations in the use of CCT in a standardised way across the following four Australian jurisdictions: Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria. We also investigated associated sociodemographic variables.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used aggregated administrative data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were data on 402 060 individuals who were in contact with specialist mental health services, of whom 51 351 (12.8%) were receiving CCT. Percentages varied from 8% in NSW to 17.6% in South Australia. There were also wide variations within jurisdictions. In NSW, prevalence ranged from 2% to 13%, in Victoria from 6% to 24%, in Queensland from 11% to 25% and in South Australia from 6% to 36%. People in contact with services who were male, single and aged between 25 and 44 years old were significantly more likely to be subject to CCT, as were people living in metropolitan areas or those born outside Oceania.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are marked variations in the use of CCT both within and between Australian jurisdictions. It is unclear how much of this variation is determined by clinical need and these findings may be of relevance to jurisdictions with similar clinician-initiated orders.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 2","pages":"e57"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12001916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variations between, and within, jurisdictions in the use of community treatment orders and other compulsory community treatment: study of 402 060 people across four Australian states.\",\"authors\":\"Steve Kisely, Claudia Bull, Tessa Zirnsak, Vrinda Edan, Morgan Gould, Sharon Lawn, Edwina Light, Chris Maylea, Giles Newton-Howes, Christopher James Ryan, Penelope Weller, Lisa Brophy\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bjo.2025.23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of compulsory community treatment (CCT) in Australia is some of the highest worldwide despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Even within Australia, use varies widely across jurisdictions despite general similarities in legislation and health services. However, there is much less information on whether variation occurs within the same jurisdiction.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To measure variations in the use of CCT in a standardised way across the following four Australian jurisdictions: Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria. We also investigated associated sociodemographic variables.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used aggregated administrative data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were data on 402 060 individuals who were in contact with specialist mental health services, of whom 51 351 (12.8%) were receiving CCT. Percentages varied from 8% in NSW to 17.6% in South Australia. There were also wide variations within jurisdictions. In NSW, prevalence ranged from 2% to 13%, in Victoria from 6% to 24%, in Queensland from 11% to 25% and in South Australia from 6% to 36%. People in contact with services who were male, single and aged between 25 and 44 years old were significantly more likely to be subject to CCT, as were people living in metropolitan areas or those born outside Oceania.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are marked variations in the use of CCT both within and between Australian jurisdictions. It is unclear how much of this variation is determined by clinical need and these findings may be of relevance to jurisdictions with similar clinician-initiated orders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"volume\":\"11 2\",\"pages\":\"e57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12001916/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.23\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.23","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:强制性社区治疗(CCT)在澳大利亚的使用率是世界上最高的,尽管有效性证据有限。即使在澳大利亚境内,尽管立法和保健服务大体相似,但不同司法管辖区的使用情况差异很大。然而,关于是否在同一管辖范围内发生变异的资料少得多。目的:以标准化的方式衡量澳大利亚以下四个司法管辖区(昆士兰州、南澳大利亚州、新南威尔士州和维多利亚州)使用有条件现金转移支付的差异。我们还调查了相关的社会人口变量。方法:我们使用来自澳大利亚健康与福利研究所的汇总管理数据。结果:共有402 60人与专业精神卫生服务机构接触,其中51 351人(12.8%)接受有条件心理治疗。比例从新南威尔士州的8%到南澳大利亚州的17.6%不等。司法管辖区内部也存在很大差异。在新南威尔士州,患病率为2%至13%,在维多利亚州为6%至24%,在昆士兰州为11%至25%,在南澳大利亚州为6%至36%。与服务接触的男性、单身、年龄在25岁至44岁之间的人更有可能接受有条件现金转移治疗,生活在大都市地区或出生在大洋洲以外的人也是如此。结论:在澳大利亚司法管辖区内部和之间,有条件现金转移支付的使用存在显著差异。目前尚不清楚这种差异有多少是由临床需要决定的,这些发现可能与具有类似临床医生发起的命令的司法管辖区相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Variations between, and within, jurisdictions in the use of community treatment orders and other compulsory community treatment: study of 402 060 people across four Australian states.

Background: The use of compulsory community treatment (CCT) in Australia is some of the highest worldwide despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Even within Australia, use varies widely across jurisdictions despite general similarities in legislation and health services. However, there is much less information on whether variation occurs within the same jurisdiction.

Aims: To measure variations in the use of CCT in a standardised way across the following four Australian jurisdictions: Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria. We also investigated associated sociodemographic variables.

Methods: We used aggregated administrative data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Results: There were data on 402 060 individuals who were in contact with specialist mental health services, of whom 51 351 (12.8%) were receiving CCT. Percentages varied from 8% in NSW to 17.6% in South Australia. There were also wide variations within jurisdictions. In NSW, prevalence ranged from 2% to 13%, in Victoria from 6% to 24%, in Queensland from 11% to 25% and in South Australia from 6% to 36%. People in contact with services who were male, single and aged between 25 and 44 years old were significantly more likely to be subject to CCT, as were people living in metropolitan areas or those born outside Oceania.

Conclusions: There are marked variations in the use of CCT both within and between Australian jurisdictions. It is unclear how much of this variation is determined by clinical need and these findings may be of relevance to jurisdictions with similar clinician-initiated orders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
×
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