Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKisely, S
dc.contributor.authorYu, D
dc.contributor.authorMaehashi, S
dc.contributor.authorSiskind, D
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-28T04:13:34Z
dc.date.available2020-09-28T04:13:34Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn0004-8674
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0004867420954286
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/397976
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Australia and New Zealand have some of the highest rates of compulsory community treatment order use worldwide. There are also concerns that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may have higher rates of community treatment orders. We therefore assessed the health service, clinical and psychosocial outcomes of compulsory community treatment and explored if culturally and linguistically diverse, indigenous status or other factors predicted community treatment orders. Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2020: PubMed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We included any study conducted in Australia or New Zealand that compared people on community treatment orders for severe mental illness with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessing study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute scales. Results: A total of 31 publications from 12 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 24 publications could be included in a meta-analysis. Only one was from New Zealand. People who were male, single and not engaged in work, study or home duties were significantly more likely to be subject to a community treatment order. In addition, those from a culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant background were nearly 40% more likely to be on an order. Indigenous status was not associated with community treatment order use in Australia and there were no New Zealand data. Community treatment orders did not reduce readmission rates or bed-days at 12-month follow-up. There was evidence of increased benefit in the longer-term but only after a minimum of 2 years of use. Finally, people on community treatment orders had a lower mortality rate, possibly related to increased community contacts. Conclusion: People from culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant backgrounds are more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. However, the evidence for effectiveness remains inconclusive and limited to orders of at least 2 years’ duration. The restrictive nature of community treatment orders may not be outweighed by the inconclusive evidence for beneficial outcomes.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSAGE Publications
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiomedical and clinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPsychology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode32
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode52
dc.subject.keywordsCommunity treatment orders
dc.subject.keywordsIndigenous peoples
dc.subject.keywordscompulsory community treatment
dc.subject.keywordsethnic minority
dc.subject.keywordsoutpatient commitment
dc.titleA systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors and outcomes of community treatment orders in Australia and New Zealand
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationKisely, S; Yu, D; Maehashi, S; Siskind, D, A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors and outcomes of community treatment orders in Australia and New Zealand, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2020
dc.date.updated2020-09-28T03:45:44Z
gro.description.notepublicThis publication has been entered into Griffith Research Online as an Advanced Online Version.
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorKisely, Steve R.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record