Abstract
Involuntary outpatient commitment (OPC) is a civil justice procedure intended to enhance compliance with community mental health treatment, to improve functioning, and to reduce recurrent dangerousness and hospital recidivism. The research literature on OPC indicates that it appears to improve outcomes in rates of rehospitalization and length of stay. However, all studies to date have serious methodological limitations because of selection bias; lack of specification of target populations; unclear operationalization of OPC; unmeasured variability in type, frequency, and intensity of treatment; as well as other confounding factors. To address limitations in these studies, the authors designed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of OPC, combined with community-based case management, which is now under way in North Carolina. This article describes ethical dilemmas in designing and implementing an RCT of a legally coercive intervention in community-based settings. These ethical dilemmas challenge the experimental validity of an RCT but can be successfully addressed with, careful planning and negotiation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Conrad KJ, Conrad KM: Reassessing validity threats in experiments: Focus on construct validity. In: Conrad KJ (Ed.):Critically Evaluating the Role of Experiments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 5–25.
Cook TD, Campbell D:Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Dennis ML: Ethical and practical randomized field experiments. In: Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE (Eds.):Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 155–197.
Dennis ML, Boruch RF: Improving the quality of randomized field experiments: Tricks of the trade. In: Conrad KJ (Ed.):Critically Evaluating the Role of Experiments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 87–101.
Federal Judicial Center:Experimentation in the Law: Report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1981.
Orwin RG, Corderay DS, Huebner RB: Judicious application of randomized designs. In: Conrad KJ (Ed.)Critically Evaluating the Role of Experiments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 73–86.
Boruch RD, Wothke W (Eds.):Randomization and Field Experiments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
National Institute of Mental Health.Caring for People with Severe Mental Disorders: A National Plan of Research to Improve Services. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 91-1762. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.
Civil confinement provision divides MH community.Psychiatric Times 1995; 12 11):17.
Shah SA, Sales BD (Eds.):Law and Mental Health: Major Developments and Research Needs. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 91-1875. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, 1991.
Appelbaum PS: Outpatient commitment: The problems and the promise.American Journal of Psychiatry 1986; 143:1270–1272.
Mulvey EP, Geller JL, Roth LH: The promise and peril of involuntary outpatient commitment.American Psychologist 1987; 42:571–584.
Hiday VA: Coercion in civil commitment: Process, preferences, and outcome.Internal Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1992; 15:359–377.
Moloy KA:Analysis: Critiquing the Empirical Evidence: Does Involuntary Outpatient Commitment Work? Washington, DC: Mental Health Policy Resource Center, 1992.
Keilitz I: Empirical studies of involuntary outpatient civil commitment: Is it working?Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 1990; 14:368–379.
Swartz MS, Burns BJ, Hiday VA, et al.: New directions in research on involuntary outpatient commitment.Psychiatric Services 1995; 46:381–385.
Torrey EF, Kaplan RJ: A national survey of the use of outpatient commitment.Psychiatric Services 1995; 46:778–784.
McCafferty G, Dooley J: Involuntary outpatient commitment: An update.Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 1990; 14:277–287.
Fernandez G, Nygard S: Impact of involuntary outpatient commitment on the revolving-door syndrome in North Carolina.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1990; 41:1001–1004.
Schwartz SJ, Costanzo CE: Compelling treatment in the community: Distorted doctrines and violated values.Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1987; 20:1329–1429.
Stefan S: Preventive commitment: The concept and its pitfalls.Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 1987; 11:288–302.
Chodoff P: Involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill as a moral issue.American Journal of Psychiatry 1984; 141:384–389.
Morse S: A preference for liberty: The case against involuntary commitment of the mentally disordered.California Law Review 1982; 70:54–106.
Hellman SE, Hellman DS: Of mice but not men: Problems of the randomized clinical trial.New England Journal of Medicine 1991; 324:1585–1589.
Freedman B: Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research.New England Journal of Medicine 1987; 317:141–145.
Passamani E: Clinical trials—Are they ethical?New England Journal of Medicine 1991; 324:1589–1592.
Shapiro DA: Outcome research. In: Hove UK (Ed.):Behavioral and Mental Health Research: A Handbook of Skills and Methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989, pp. 163–187.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH48103 and MH51410).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Swartz, M.S., Burns, B.J., George, L.K. et al. The ethical challenges of a randomized controlled trial of involuntary outpatient commitment. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 24, 35–43 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02790478
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02790478