Systematic review of involuntary hospitalisation and long-term compliance

The long-term adherence following the end of Community Treatment Order: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The community treatment order (CTO) is designed to deliver mental healthcare in the community and has been introduced in around 75 jurisdictions worldwide. It constitutes a legal obligation in which individuals with severe mental illness must adhere to out-of-hospital treatment plans. Despite intense criticism and the debated nature of published evidence, it has emerged as a clinical and policy response to frequent hospital readmissions and to enhance adherence in cases where there is refusal of pharmacological treatments. This systematic review outlines findings on CTO long-term adherence, after mandatory outpatient treatment has ended, in studies that include people with psychiatric disorders.

METHOD

Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a review of published articles from PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to January 15, 2023. We included studies that assessed adherence after CTO ends. The study is registered with PROSPERO number CRD42022360879.

RESULTS

Six independent studies analyzing the main indicators of long adherence: engagement with services and medication adherence, were included. The average methodological quality of the studies included is fair. Long-term adherence was assessed over a period ranging from 11 to 28 months. Only two studies reported a statistically significant improvement. Regarding the remaining studies, no positive correlation was observed, except for certain subgroup samples, while in one study, medication adherence decreased.

CONCLUSION

Scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that CTO has a positive role on long-term adherence post-obligation is currently not sufficient. Given the importance of modern recovery-oriented approaches and the coercive nature of compulsory outpatient treatment, it is necessary that future studies ensure the role of CTO in effectively promoting adherence.

Holding the Guardrails on Involuntary Commitment

In response to the increasing number of mentally ill people experiencing homelessness, some policy-makers have called for the expanded use of involuntary commitment, even for individuals who are not engaging in behaviors that are immediately life-threatening. Yet there is no evidence that involuntary commitment offers long-term benefits, and significant reasons to believe that expanding the practice will cause harm. In addition, these proposals ignore research showing that most people with mental illness have the capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. Rather than expanding the use of involuntary commitment, policy-makers should support approaches proven to decrease the prevalence of homelessness, such as supportive housing. In addition, states should reevaluate their commitment standards for persons who pose no risk of harm to others. One promising approach is Northern Ireland's Mental Health Capacity Act of 2016, which establishes a uniform standard for imposing nonconsensual health care interventions, without any distinction between mental illnesses and other conditions in which capacity might be compromised.

Compulsory treatment in Portuguese-speaking countries: An analysis and comparison of the legal framework

BACKGROUND

Compulsory treatment involves the hospital admission of individuals with mental disorders in appropriate facilities through judicial decisions. However, limited information is available regarding the similarities and differences in compulsory treatment legislation in Portuguese-speaking countries.

AIMS

To analyse the commonalities and differences in compulsory treatment legislation in Portuguese-speaking countries, where Portuguese is the primary official language, including Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, and São Tomé and Príncipe.

METHODS

A comparative analysis of the specific legislation on compulsory treatment in Portuguese-speaking countries was conducted. National development plans were analysed in countries lacking legislation. A purposive sampling of mental health professionals was contacted to gather information on the countries under study.

RESULTS

Among the eight Portuguese-speaking countries examined, specific legislation regarding compulsory treatment was found only in Brazil, Cape Verde, and Portugal. These countries, with the lowest poverty rates, exhibited a notable degree of homogeneity in the criteria supporting compulsory treatment, ensuring the protection of individual rights. In contrast, in Angola, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe, compulsory treatment primarily relies on mental health development plans, resulting in significant variations in the presented criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant disparities in compulsory treatment policies among Portuguese-speaking countries, with only Brazil, Cape Verde, and Portugal having specific legislation, underscore the need for a collective effort to establish more consistent procedures and safeguard individual rights.