CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesHealth, Medicine and Society

A national survey of the use of outpatient commitment

Ε. Fuller Torrey, R J Kaplan·1995·Psychiatric Services
DOI 10.1176/ps.46.8.778
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of use of outpatient commitment, a survey was undertaken of each state and the District of Columbia. METHODS: One of the authors, an attorney, reviewed pertinent state statutes, then conducted telephone interviews with individuals in each state who were knowledgeable about the use of outpatient commitment. RESULTS: Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have laws permitting outpatient commitment. Georgia, Hawaii, and North Carolina use different criteria for outpatient commitment than for inpatient commitment. In only 12 states and the District of Columbia was use of outpatient commitment rated as very common or common. Reasons for not using it include concerns about civil liberties, liability, and fiscal burden as well as lack of information and interest, the failure of some states to set enforceable consequences for noncompliance, and criteria that are too restrictive. Some states use alternative formal or informal mechanisms to encourage treatment compliance; conditional release is widely used in New Hampshire and conservatorship-guardianship in California. Within many states the availability of outpatient commitment varies considerably by locale. CONCLUSIONS: To clarify the role of outpatient commitment in psychiatric services, more research is needed to identify optimal candidates for its use. Research is also needed on its overall effectiveness compared with conditional release and conservatorship-guardianship and on the consequences of not using such mechanisms to improve treatment compliance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/ps.46.8.778

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Compulsory treatment for people with severe mental disorders in the community is used in many countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA.

    “Compulsory treatment for people with severe mental disorders in the community is used in many countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA (Kanter 1995; Torrey 1995; Light 2012; Gray 2016).”

    From Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders. (2017) · cites this paper as Torrey 1995

  • Even when studies have used control groups, it is difficult to know whether to attribute any improvement to compulsory community treatment or to the non-specific effects of increased contact with healthcare professionals.

    “However, even when studies have used control groups, it is difficult to know whether to attribute any improvement to CCT, or to the non-specific effects of increased contact with healthcare professionals (Swartz 1995; Torrey 1995; Geller 1998).”

    From Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders. (2017) · cites this paper as Torrey 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Torrey, Ε. F., & Kaplan, R. J.
Affiliations
St. Elizabeths Hospital (US)
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Publisher
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
Published
1995-08-01
Volume
46
Issue
8
Pages
778-784
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
DOI
10.1176/ps.46.8.778
OpenAlex
W1666190162
Cited by
98
References
28
Citations by year
2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
outpatient commitment, medication adherence, conditional release, civil liberties, mental health law
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Mental Disorders, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Humans, Length of Stay, Patient Advocacy, Social Responsibility, United States, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders

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