Cited by 106Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesSchizophrenia research and treatment

A systematic review of the effect of community treatment orders on service use

Maughan, Daniel, Molodynski, Andrew, Rugkåsa, Jorun, Burns, Tom·2014·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose The evidence regarding community treatment order effectiveness has been conflicting. This systematic review aims to bring up to date the review performed by Churchill and colleagues in 2005 by assessing and interpreting evidence of CTO effectiveness defined by admission rates, number of inpatient days, community service use, and medication adherence published since 2006.Method Databases were searched to obtain relevant studies published from January 2006 to March 2013.Results 18 studies including one randomised controlled trial were included. There remains lack of evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies that CTOs are associated with or affected by admission rates, number of inpatient days or community service use. The most recent and largest RCT is included in this review and found no significant impact on admission rate (RR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.75-1.33) or number of days in hospital (IR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.26). Results from the two largest longitudinal datasets included in this review do not concur. Studies using the New York dataset found that CTOs were associated with reduced admission rates and inpatient days, while studies using the Victoria dataset generally found that they were associated with increased admission rates and inpatient days.Conclusion There is now robust evidence in the literature that CTOs have no significant effects on hospitalisation and other service use outcomes. Non-randomised studies continue to report conflicting results. Distinguishing between CTO recall and revocation and different patterns of community contact is needed in future research to ensure differentiation between CTO process and outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00127-013-0781-0

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maughan, D., Molodynski, A., Rugkåsa, J., & Burns, T.
Affiliations
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Akershus University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Maughan, Daniel
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published
2013-10-18
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
651-663
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
OpenAlex
W2085305667
Cited by
106
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
community treatment orders, psychiatric hospital admissions, inpatient days, medication adherence, community contacts
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Hospitalization, Humans, Antipsychotic Agents, Victoria, Treatment Outcome, Medication Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review