Does involuntary outpatient commitment lead to more intensive treatment?

Cochrane meta-analysis fuels invalid skepticism about compulsory community treatment effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Quantitative research on non-randomized-samples, focused on statute-mandated-outcomes, has found positive results favoring compulsory-community-treatment (CCT) in jurisdictions fully supporting its implementation. In contrast, three randomized-studies "failed-to-find" a difference between randomly-assigned-CCT and control-groups-each study repeatedly summarized in revisions of a Cochrane-meta-analysis reporting this failure. Considering the potential health and safety threats to people with severe-mental-illness and those with whom they interact, there is a critical need for this investigation to resolve these conflicting results.

METHOD

Using data and procedural-descriptions from the involved-studies, this validity-focused-analysis addressed six questions. Two external-validity focused-questions addressing generalizability of study findings: 1. Did the Cochrane-meta-analysis select studies focused on the CCT-target population? 2. Assuming valid population focus did the Cochrane meta-analysis enroll individuals from among this population fitting the CCT criteria? Four internal-validity-questions: 1. Did the study-designs address the intervention's purpose? 2. Were the outcome-criteria used in the selected-studies valid-indicators of the intervention's intended-outcomes? 3. Were the studies reviewed in the Cochrane-meta-analysis, controlled-trials? And 4. Were the prescribed-Cochrane-Database-statistical-procedures appropriate for evaluating the reviewed-randomized-trials?

RESULTS

Focused on completing randomized-investigations, two outpatient-commitment and one CTO-study failed to validly represent the CCT-population, failed to enroll qualifying-subjects, conflated their primary outcome-measure with a required-intervention-procedure, failed to control for post-randomization experiences directly related to their primary-outcome-measure, and conflated the study conditions. Two trials continuously misrepresented themselves as "randomized-controlled-trials". All relied on univariate-contrasts in evaluating their outcomes, while without post-randomization-control the studies required multivariate-controls for contrasting the outcomes of their intervention-groups. The Cochrane-review, while listing the short-comings of these studies, placing an over-emphasis on prescriptive-methodology, without addressing study substantive-validity, has yielded spurious-conclusions suborning an invalid political-narrative regarding CCT-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The "failure-to-find" results from the Cochrane-reviewed-studies can be attributed to research shortcomings rather than intervention-ineffectiveness. The Cochrane-review has promoted undue controversy and skepticism re the use of CCT, a potentially lifesaving-procedure.

Hospital Utilization Outcomes Following Assignment to Outpatient Commitment

Outpatient civil commitment (OCC) requires people with severe mental illness (SMI) to receive needed-treatment addressing imminent-threats to health and safety. When available, such treatment is required to be provided in the community as a less restrictive alternative (LRA) to psychiatric-hospitalization. Variance in hospital-utilization outcomes following OCC-assignment has been interpreted as OCC-failure. This review seeks to specify factors accounting for this outcome-variation and to determine whether OCC is used effectively. Twenty-five studies, sited in seven meta-analyses and subsequently published investigations, assessing post-OCC-assignment hospital utilization outcomes were reviewed. Studies were grouped by structural pre-determinants of hospital-utilization and OCC-implementation-i.e. deinstitutionalization (bed-availability), availability of a less restrictive alternative to hospitalization, and illness severity. Design quality at study completion was ranked on causal-certainty. In OCC-follow-up-studies, deinstitutionalization associated hospital-bed-cuts, when not taken into account, ensured lower hospital-bed-day utilization. OCC-assignment coupled with aggressive case-management was associated with reduced-hospitalization. With limited community-service, hospitalizations increased as the default option for providing needed-treatment. Follow-up studies showed less hospitalization while on OCC-assignment and more outside of it. Studies using fixed-follow-up periods usually found increased-utilization as patients spent less time under OCC-supervision than outside it. Comparison-group-studies reporting no between-group differences bring more severely ill OCC-patients to equivalent use as less disturbed patients, a success. Mean evidence-rank for causal-certainty 2.96, range 2-4, of 5 with no study ranked 1, the highest rank. Diverse mental health systems yield diverse OCC hospital-utilization outcomes, each fulfilling the law's legal mandate to provide needed-treatment protecting health and safety.

The utility of outpatient civil commitment: Investigating the evidence

BACKGROUND

Outpatient civil commitment (OCC), community treatment orders (CTOs) in European and Commonwealth nations, require the provision of needed-treatment to protect against imminent threats to health and safety. OCC-reviews aggregating all studies report inconsistent outcomes. This review, searches for consistency in OCC-outcomes by evaluating studies based on mental health system characteristics, measurement, and design principles.

METHODS

All previously reviewed OCC-studies and more recent investigations were grouped by their outcome-measures' relationship to OCC statute objectives. A study's evidence-quality ranking was assessed. Hospital and service-utilization outcomes were grouped by whether they represented treatment provision, patient outcome, or the conflation of both.

RESULTS

OCC-studies including direct health and safety outcomes found OCC associated with reduced mortality-risk, increased access to acute medical care, and reduced violence and victimization risks. Studies considering treatment-provision, found OCC associated with improved medication and service compliance. If coupled with assertive community treatment (ACT) or aggressive case management OCC was associated with enhanced ACT success in reducing hospitalization need. When outpatient-services were limited, OCC facilitated rapid return to hospital for needed-treatment and increased hospital utilization in the absence of a less restrictive alternative. OCC-studies measuring "total hospital days", "prevention of hospitalization", and "readmissions" report negative and/or no difference findings because they erroneously conflate their intervention (provision of needed treatment) and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation finds replicated beneficial associations between OCC and direct measures of imminent harm indicating reductions in threats to health and safety. It also finds support for OCC as a less restrictive alternative to inpatient care.

Decriminalizing mental illness: specialized policing responses

De-institutionalization of mental health patients has evolved, over nearly 3 generations now, to a status quo of mental health patients experiencing myriad contacts with first-responders, primarily police, in lieu of care. The current institutions in which these patients rotate through are psychiatric emergency units, emergency rooms, jails, and prisons. Although more police are now specially trained to respond to calls that involve mental health patients, the criminalization of persons with mental illness has been steadily increasing over the past several decades. There have also been deaths. The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model fosters mental health acumen among first responders, and facilitates collaboration among first responders, mental health professionals, and mental health patients and their families. Here, we review some modern, large city configurations of CIT, the co-responder model, the mitigating effects of critically situated community-based programs, as well as barriers to the success of joint efforts to better address this pressing problem.

Compulsory community treatment to reduce readmission to hospital and increase engagement with community care in people with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Compulsory community treatment (CCT) aims to reduce hospital readmissions among people with mental illness. However, research examining the usefulness of CCT is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CCT in reducing readmission and length of stay in hospital and increasing community service use and treatment adherence.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched three databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase) for quantitative studies on CCT published in English between Jan 1, 1806, and Jan 4, 2018. We included both randomised and non-randomised designs that compared CCT with no CCT, and pre-post designs that compared patients before and after CCT. Studies were eligible if they had been peer-reviewed, if 50% or more of patients had severe mental illness, and if CCT was the intervention. Trials in which CCT was used in response to a criminal offence were excluded. We extracted data on study characteristics and length of follow-up, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, race, and admission history, and outcomes of interest (readmission to hospital, inpatient bed-days, community service use, and treatment adherence) for meta-analysis, for which we extracted summary estimates. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures and convert effect size statistics into standardised mean differences. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018086232.

FINDINGS

Of 1931 studies identified, 41 (2%) met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for analysis. Before and after CCT comparisons showed significant large effects on readmission to hospital (standardised mean difference 0·80, 95% CI 0·53-1·08; I²=94·74), use of community services (0·83, 0·46-1·21; I²=87·26), and treatment adherence (2·12, 1·69-2·55; I²=0), and a medium effect on inpatient bed-days (0·66, 0·46-0·85; I²=94·12). Contemporaneous controlled comparison studies (randomised and non-randomised) showed no significant effect on readmission, inpatient bed-days, or treatment adherence, but a moderate effect on use of community services (0·38, 0·19-0·58; I²=96·92). A high degree of variability in study quality was found, with observational study ratings ranging from three to nine. Bias most frequently centred on poor comparability between CCT and control participants.

INTERPRETATION

We found no consistent evidence that CCT reduces readmission or length of inpatient stay, although it might have some benefit in enforcing use of outpatient treatment or increasing service provision, or both. Future research should focus on why some people do not engage with treatment offered and on enhancing quality of the community care available. Shortcomings of this study include high levels of variability between studies and variation in study quality.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (2003, 2008, 2012, 8 November 2013, 3 June 2016). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of CCT such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and, where possible, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE approach to create 'Summary of findings' tables for key outcomes and assessed the risk of bias of these findings.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included three studies (n = 749). Two were based in the USA and one in England. The English study had the least bias, meeting three out of the seven criteria of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The two other studies met only one criterion, the majority being rated unclear.Two trials from the USA (n = 416) compared court-ordered 'outpatient commitment' (OPC) with entirely voluntary community treatment. There were no significant differences between OPC and voluntary treatment by 11 to 12 months in any of the main health service or participant level outcome indices: service use - readmission to hospital (2 RCTs, n= 416, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, low-quality evidence); service use - compliance with medication (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19, low-quality evidence); social functioning - arrested at least once (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52, low-quality evidence); social functioning - homelessness (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.15, low-quality evidence); or satisfaction with care - perceived coercion (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.89, low-quality evidence). However, one trial found the risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, low-quality evidence).The other RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive and briefer supervised discharge (Section 17) in England. The study found no difference between the two groups for either the main health service outcomes including readmission to hospital by 12 months (1 RCT, n = 333, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence), or any of the participant level outcomes. The lack of any difference between the two groups persisted at 36 months' follow-up.Combining the results of all three trials did not alter these results. For instance, participants on any form of CCT were no less likely to be readmitted than participants in the control groups whether on entirely voluntary treatment or subject to intermittent supervised discharge (3 RCTs, n = 749, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16 moderate-quality evidence). In terms of NNTB, it would take 142 orders to prevent one readmission. There was no clear difference between groups for perceived coercion by 12 months (3 RCTs, n = 645, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71, moderate-quality evidence).There were no data for adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These review data show CCT results in no clear difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with voluntary care or brief supervised discharge. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and low- to moderate-quality evidence. In addition, clinical trials may not fully reflect the potential benefits of this complex intervention.

Effects of assisted outpatient treatment and health care services on psychotic symptoms

RATIONALE

An ongoing debate concerns acceptability, benefits, and shortcomings of coercive treatment such as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT). The hypothesis that involuntary commitment to outpatient treatment may lead to a better clinical outcome for a subgroup of persons with severe mental illness (SMI) is controversial. Nonetheless, positive effects of AOT may be mediated by an increased availability of healthcare resources or increased service use.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the course of delusions, hallucinations, and negative symptoms among patients with SMI receiving AOT compared to patients receiving non-compulsory treatment (NCT). Moreover, we assessed if the effects of AOT on psychotic symptoms were mediated by increased healthcare service use.

METHODS

This study used a quasi-experimental design to examine the effect of AOT and the use of healthcare services on psychotic symptoms. In total, 76 (41.3%) participants with SMI received AOT, and 108 (58.7%) received NCT. The participants were interviewed at baseline every 3 months up to 1 year. Propensity score matching was used to control for group differences.

RESULTS

In the basic model, AOT was associated with lower severity of psychotic symptoms over all follow-up points. In the model including healthcare service use, the frequency of case manager visits predicted a reduction in severity of all psychotic symptoms. The frequency of visits to the outpatient clinics, frequency of emergency room, and psychiatrist visits were independently associated with lower levels of delusional symptoms. Psychiatrist visits were related to a decrease in negative symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that the treatment benefits of AOT are enhanced with the increased use of mental healthcare services, suggesting that the positive effect of AOT on psychotic symptoms is related to the availability of mental healthcare service use. Coercive outpatient treatment might be more effective through greater use of intensive services.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CCT for people with SMI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register and Science Citation Index (2003, 2008, and 2012). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. We further updated this search on the 8 November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of compulsory community treatment such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table for outcomes we rated as important and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

All studies (n=3) involved patients in community settings who were followed up over 12 months (n = 752 participants).Two RCTs from the USA (total n = 416) compared court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) with voluntary community treatment. OPC did not result in significant differences compared to voluntary treatment in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.21, low grade evidence); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52, low grade evidence); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15, low grade evidence) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89, low grade evidence). However, risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50 CI 0.31 to 0.80). Other than perceived coercion, no adverse outcomes were reported. In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5).One further RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive supervised discharge in England and found no difference between the two for either the main outcome of readmission (1 RCT, n = 333, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.99 CI 0.74 to 1.32, medium grade evidence), or any of the secondary outcomes including social functioning and mental state. It was not possible to calculate the NNT. The English study met three out of the seven criteria of The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, the others only one, the majority being rated unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CCT results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard voluntary care. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and evidence we rated as low to medium quality.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illnesses reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. Given the widespread use of such powers it is important to assess the effects of this type of legislation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register 2003, 2008, and Science Citation Index. We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors of each included study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials of compulsory community treatment compared with standard care for people with severe mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected and quality assessed studies and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n = 416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence that compulsory community treatment was effective in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.2); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8). In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5). A new search for trials in 2008 did not find any new trials that were relevant to this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. People receiving compulsory community treatment were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this type of legislation is introduced.

Dilemmas for clinicians in use of Community Treatment Orders

Clinicians who treat patients using Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) face many potential dilemmas in their relations with involuntary outpatients and the exercise of their powers. We compare the dilemmas identified in the literature with those reported by responsible clinicians in New Zealand (NZ). These clinicians experienced a number of well-known dilemmas, such as determining the right moment for a person's discharge from a CTO, but they seemed less troubled by some other difficulties than might be expected, usually because they considered involuntary outpatient treatment the best option for the patient or the best way to manage the risks involved. Further dilemmas were identified by the NZ clinicians that have not been widely discussed, concerning the proper scope of clinical authority over patients under CTOs and the decision to revoke involuntary outpatient status. In conclusion, some suggestions are made as to how clinicians might best manage the dilemmas involved.

The evolution of outpatient commitment in the USA: from conundrum to quagmire

Outpatient commitment (OPC), a major form of involuntary community-based treatment, has evolved in the United States on a state-by-state basis amidst a storm of controversy. The polarizing debate that has gone on intensely about OPC for the last two decades has all too often been devoid of data. This article reviews the various arguments pro and con about OPC, and then examines the research on the effectiveness of OPC. Since the newest data seem to support OPC as a useful tool in dealing with specific subpopulations of persons with chronic mental illness, the paper examines the question of whether OPC is a legitimate use of government power. The most extensive analysis of this question to date has occurred in the New York State Courts which have supported the New York State OPC statute, Kendra's Law. The paper concludes with an examination of the future of OPC in the states, calling in particular for further research into the question of determining to whom, from a clinical point of view, should OPC be delivered.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illnesses reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. Given the widespread use of such powers it is important to assess the effects of this type of legislation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register to 2003 and Science Citation Index. We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors of each included study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials of compulsory community treatment compared with standard care for people with severe mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected and quality assessed studies and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n=416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence to indicate that compulsory community treatment was effective in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n=416, RR readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.2), social functioning (2 RCTs, n=416, RR outcome 'arrested at least once by 11-12 months' 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52), mental state, quality of life (2 RCTs, n=416, RR homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n=416, RR perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n=264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8, NNT 6 CI 6 to 6.5). In terms of numbers needed to treat, it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, community treatment orders may not be an effective alternative to standard care. It appears that compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. There is currently no evidence of cost effectiveness. People receiving compulsory community treatment were, however, less likely to be victim of violent or non-violent crime. It is, nevertheless, difficult to conceive of another group in society that would be subject to measures that curtail the freedom of 85 people to avoid one admission to hospital or of 238 to avoid one arrest. We urgently require further, good quality randomised controlled studies to consolidate findings and establish whether it is the intensity of treatment in compulsory community treatment or its compulsory nature that affects outcome. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be included if this type of legislation is introduced.

Involuntary outpatient commitment, community treatment orders, and assisted outpatient treatment: what's in the data?

OBJECTIVE

Involuntary outpatient commitment (OPC), also referred to as community treatment orders or assisted outpatient treatment, is a legal intervention intended to improve treatment adherence among persons with serious mental illness. This paper reviews the empirical literature on the procedure's effectiveness.

METHODS

We identified and reviewed all English-language studies of OPC and related procedures available in Medline and other bibliographic search services.

RESULTS

Existing naturalistic and quasi-experimental studies, taken as a whole, moderately support the view that the procedure is effective, although all do have methodological limitations. Two randomized controlled studies of OPC have conflicting findings and are reviewed in detail.

CONCLUSIONS

On balance, empirical studies support the view that OPC is effective under certain conditions, although some of the evidence has been contested and the policy remains controversial.

Effects of involuntary outpatient commitment on subjective quality of life in persons with severe mental illness

Recent evidence suggests that involuntary outpatient commitment (OPC), when appropriately applied, can improve adherence with psychiatric treatment, decrease hospital recidivism and arrests, and lower the risk of violent behavior in persons with severe mental illness. Presumably these are benefits that improve quality of life (QOL); however, insofar as OPC involves legal coercion, the undesirable aspects of OPC could also exert a negative effect on quality of life, thus offsetting clinical benefits. Involuntarily hospitalized subjects, awaiting discharge under outpatient commitment, were randomly assigned to be released or continue under outpatient commitment in the community after hospital discharge, and were followed for one year. Quality of life was measured at baseline and 12 months follow-up. Treatment characteristics and clinical outcomes were also measured. Subjects who underwent longer periods of outpatient commitment had significantly greater quality of life as measured at the end of the 1 year study. Multivariable analysis showed that the effect of OPC on QOL was mediated by greater treatment adherence and lower symptom scores. However, perceived coercion moderated the effect of OPC on QOL. Involuntary outpatient commitment, when sustained over time, indirectly exerts a positive effect on subjective quality of life for persons with SMI, at least in part by improving treatment adherence and lowering symptomatology.