A systematic review of the views and experiences of subjects of community treatment orders
Abstract
Objective CTOS have been the subject of many qualitative and quantitative research studies. Both research approaches add value to our understanding of CTOs. Qualitative studies provide an understanding of CTOs and the experience of being on a CTO that quantitative studies cannot provide. Many qualitative studies that have examined the views of subjects of CTOs have been published. However, authors of these studies continue to note that views and experiences of the subjects of these orders are not well known. This paper provides the results of a systematic review of qualitative studies focused on understanding the experiences of individuals who have been the subjects of CTOs.Method Relevant databases and grey literature were searched. To be included, a study had to have used a qualitative methodology for data collection and analysis, and focus on examining stakeholder perspectives on the lived experience of CTOs.Results After a rigorous review of the abstracts, we identified 22 papers that met the criteria. These papers were analysed in detail in order to examine the existence of common themes. The 22 papers represented the views of 581 participants from 7 countries around the world. Ten themes were found to be common among the research findings of the 22 papers. Three themes in particular were highlighted: feelings of coercion and control, medication seen as the main reason for a CTO and that the perception of CTOs as a safety net. Findings also highlight the ambivalence that subjects of CTOs experience, the importance of the therapeutic relationship for successful engagement of the subject of the CTO and the complex role of coercion.Recommendations We have made a number of recommendations about how clinicians might use the views of the subjects of CTOs achieve a more positive experience of a CTO.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Most commonly, a cost of community treatment orders was a lack of self-determination and control over treatment for people made subject to them.
“Most commonly, this was a lack of self-determination and control over treatment for people made subject to CTOs”
From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Corring et al., 2017
A positive relationship with clinicians could emerge if people on community treatment orders were able to accept the conditions.
“However, a positive relationship with clinicians could emerge if people on CTOs were able to accept the conditions”
From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Corring et al., 2017
Increased medication adherence was reported as a positive outcome of community treatment orders, although this was more likely to be valued by clinicians rather than people on community treatment orders.
“Increased medication adherence was reported as a positive outcome of CTOs although this was more likely to be valued by clinicians rather than people on CTOs”
From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Corring et al., 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 51
- Authors
- Corring, D., O'Reilly, R., & Sommerdyk, C.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Corring, Deborah
- ORCID
- Corring, Deborah
- Venue
- International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 52
- Pages
- 74-80
- ISSN
- 0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2595430285
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 1.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- St Joseph's Health Care Foundation (058-1314)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Keywords
- community treatment orders, forensic mental health, lived experience, coercion, therapeutic relationship, ambivalence, medication, social safety nets, patient engagement, mental health law
- MeSH terms
- Attitude to Health, Community Mental Health Services, Humans, Patients
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