Community treatment orders: international perspective
Open accessAbstract
The use of community treatment orders (CTOs) is available in more than 70 jurisdictions around the world. Although CTOs are used extensively, their effectiveness remains doubtful. We comment on the existing evidence and focus on components that influence the outcomes of CTOs internationally. It is essential to identify factors that affect the delivery of CTOs, and mixed methodologies may improve our understanding regarding their efficiency.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Although legal frameworks may vary internationally, the core challenges (balancing patient autonomy, clinical risk, and procedural fairness) are widely shared.
“Although legal frameworks may vary internationally, the core challenges (balancing patient autonomy, clinical risk, and procedural fairness) are widely shared (Mikellides et al., 2019).”
From A hybrid fuzzy logic–Random Forest model to predict psychiatric treatment order outcomes: an interpretable tool for legal decision support (2025) · cites this paper as Mikellides et al., 2019
The ‘International community treatment orders use and outcomes’ section (page unavailable) says CTO legislation and administration vary across jurisdictions. ‘Clinical decision-making’ discusses consent and risk, while the international comparison lists oversight and tribunal procedures in some jurisdictions. The paper does not establish procedural fairness as a widely shared challenge across jurisdictions, so the full characterization is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Assessing the New York City involuntary outpatient commitment pilot program
Steadman, H. J., Gounis, K., Dennis, D., Hopper, K., Roche, B., Swartz, M., & Robbins, P. C. (2001) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.52.3.330 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Burgess P., Bindman J., Leese M., (2006) Do community treatment orders for mental illness reduce readmission to hospital? An epidemiological study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 41, 574– 579. 16685479
- Burns T., Rugkasa J., Molodynski A., (2013) Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis (OCTET): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 381, 1627– 1633. 23537605
- Dale E. (2010) Is supervised community treatment ethically justifiable? J Med Ethics, 36, 271– 274. 20448004
- Dawson J. & Mullen R. (2008) Insight and community treatment orders. J Ment Health, 17, 269– 280. 20540681
- Gibbs A., Dawson J., Ansley C., (2005) How patients in New Zealand view community treatment orders. J Ment Health, 14, 357– 368. 20540681
- Kisely S. R., Campbell L. A. & Preston N. J. (2011) Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, CD004408. 16034930
- Link B. G., Epperson M. W., Perron B. E., (2011) Arrest outcomes associated with outpatient commitment in New York State. Psychiatr Serv, 62, 504– 508. 21532076 PMC5826718
- Lofthus A. M., Westerlund H., Bjørgen D., (2018) Recovery concept in a Norwegian setting to be examined by the assertive community treatment model and mixed methods. Int J Ment Health Nurs, 27(1), 147– 157. 28026106
- Newton-Howes G. & Ryan C. J. (2017) The use of community treatment orders in competent patients is not justified. Br J Psychiatry, 210(5), 311– 312. 28465383
- Puntis S. R., Rugkåsa J. & Burns T. (2017) Associations between compulsory community treatment and continuity of care in a three year follow-up of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET) cohort. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 151. 28454533 PMC5410081
- Rugkåsa J. & Burns T. (2017) Community treatment orders: are they useful? BJPsych Adv, 23(4), 222– 230.
- Stensrud B., Høyer G., Granerud A., (2015) “Life on hold”: a qualitative study of patient experiences with outpatient commitment in two Norwegian counties. Issues Ment Health Nurs, 36(3), 209– 216. 25898132 PMC4776696
- Szmukler G. (2015) Is there a place for community treatment orders after the OCTET study? Acta Psychiatr Scand, 131(5), 330– 332. 25556723
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hudon, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1606250 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Although legal frameworks may vary internationally, the core challenges (balancing patient autonomy, clinical risk, and procedural fairness) are widely shared (Mikellides et al., 2019).”
- Authors
- Mikellides, G., Stefani, A., & Tantele, M.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Ministry of Health (CY)
- Venue
- BJPsych International
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 2019-03-29
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 83-86
- ISSN
- 2056-4740 (ISSN-L)
- 2058-6264
- PMC
- PMC7054326
- OpenAlex
- W2926578147
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 0.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BJPsych International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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 psychiatry, involuntary psychiatric treatment, cross-national comparison, treatment effectiveness, mixed methods
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
