Service Users' Knowledge and Views on Outpatients' Compulsory Community Treatment Orders: A Cross-Sectional Matched Comparison Study

Current State of Research on Coercion in Mental Health: Umbrella Review Protocol

In recent years, international organizations, professionals, and representatives of mental health service users have expressed the need to regulate, limit, and even eliminate coercive measures in psychiatric treatment. The main objective of the current review is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence on coercion in mental health care through a protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews. This protocol was designed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute guide for methodological development, conduct, and reporting of umbrella reviews. To minimize bias in the process, two independent reviewers selected the studies to be included, extracted, and synthesized; analyzed the data; and assessed risk of bias of each review. The review protocol was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. This review offers a comprehensive compilation of systematic reviews on coercion developed to date. Coercion causes adverse physical and psychological effects and is an emotional stressor for individuals with psychiatric diagnoses and health care workers. Characterization of coercion across care settings, its impact on clinical outcomes, the perception of those involved, and how coercion could be reduced will also be discussed. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, xx(xx), xx-xx.].

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders' opinions

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT.

AIM

This integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT.

METHODS

We performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

We found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients' freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.

Do Community Free-Medication Service Policy Improve Patient Medication Adherence? A Cross-Sectional Study of Patients With Severe Mental Disorders in Beijing Community

Background: Nowadays, mental health problems have become a major concern affecting economic and social development, with severe mental health disorders being the top priority. In 2013, Beijing began to implement the Community Free-Medication Service policy (CFMS). This article aims to evaluate the effect of the policy on medication adherence.

Methods: In this study, multi-stage sampling was used to select representative patients as samples. Some of the baseline data were obtained by consulting the archives, and information about patient medication adherence measured by Brooks Medication Adherence Scale was obtained through face-to-face interviews. Logistic regression was used to examine the impact of the policy.

Results: Policy participation had a significant positive impact on medication adherence (OR = 1.557). The effect of policy participation on medication adherence in the Medication-only mode and Subsidy-only mode were highly significant, but it was not significant in the Mixed mode.

Conclusion: This study found that the CFMS in Beijing as an intervention is effective in improving the medication adherence of community patients. However, the impact of the policy is not consistent among service modes. Reinforcement magnitude and frequency should be considered when designing reinforcement interventions.

Cooperation in the mental health treatment of patients with outpatient commitment

Background:

Patients with outpatient commitment have a decision on coercive treatment from the specialist health services even if they are in their own home and receive municipal health services.

Objective:

The aim of this study is to gain more knowledge about how the outpatient commitment system works in the municipal health service and specialist health services, and how they collaborate with patients and across service levels from the perspectives of healthcare professionals.

Methods:

This is a qualitative study collecting data through focus group interviews with health personnel from the municipal health service and specialist health services.

Results:

The results describe the health personnel’s experiences with follow-up and interactions with the patients with outpatient commitment decisions, and their experiences with collaboration between service levels.

Conclusion:

The study show that outpatient commitment makes a difference in the way patients with this decision are followed up. The legislative amendment with new requirements for consent competence was challenging. Collaboration between services levels was also challenging.

Outpatient commitment in mental health services from a municipal view

BACKGROUND

Outpatient commitment (OC) is a legal decision for compulsory mental health care when the patient stays in his or her own home. Municipal health-care workers have a key role for patients with OC decision, but little is known about how the legislation system with OC works from the municipality's point of view.

METHOD

The present study has a quantitative descriptive design using an electronic questionnaire sent to health-care workers in the municipalities that participated. The study included health-care workers from the mental health services in two counties in Norway who have experience with psychosis and OC decisions.

RESULTS

There were 230 people who received the questionnaire. The sample consisted of various health professionals from both small and large municipalities.The results show which tasks they have in follow-up of patients in the municipalities.

CONCLUSION

From the municipality's point of view, there are no significant differences in follow-up for patients with or without an OC decision, apart from conversations about medication. An individual plan is rarely used to facilitate follow-up, although this is the statutory right of patients with OC decisions. The health-care workers lack knowledge and education about the OC scheme. The cooperation between municipalities and the specialist health-care services is not clearly defined.