Community treatment orders and social outcomes for patients with psychosis: a 48-month follow-up study
- 595 Downloads
Community treatment orders (CTOs) are widely used internationally despite a lack of evidence supporting their effectiveness. Most effectiveness studies are relatively short (12-months or less) and focus on clinical symptoms and service data, while a little attention is given to patients’ social outcomes and broader welfare. We tested the association between the duration of CTO intervention and patients’ long-term social outcomes.
A sub-sample (n = 114) of community-based patients from the Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) were interviewed 48 months after randomisation. Multivariate regression models were used to examine the association between the duration of the CTO intervention and social outcomes as measured by the social network schedule, Objective Social Outcomes Index, Euro-Qol EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D), and Oxford Capabilities Questionnaire for Mental Health.
No significant association was found between the duration of CTO intervention and social network size (IRR = 0.996, p = .63), objective social outcomes (B = −0.003, p = .77), health-related quality of life (B = 0.001, p = .77), and capabilities (B = 0.046, p = .41). There were no between-group differences in social outcomes when outcomes were stratified by original arm of randomisation. Patients had a mean of 10.2 (SD = 5.9) contacts in their social networks, 42% of whom were relatives.
CTO duration was not associated with improvements in patients’ social outcomes even over the long term. This study adds to growing concerns about CTO effectiveness and the justification for their continued use.
KeywordsSocial networks Objective social outcomes Health-related quality of life Capabilities, OxCAP-MH Longitudinal
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Churchill R, Owen G, Singh S, Hotopf M (2007) International experiences of using community treatment orders. Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 4.NHS (2016) Inpatients formally detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983 and patients subject to Supervised Community Treatment: 2015/16, Annual figures. http://www.content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB22571. Accessed 12 Jan 2017
- 8.Burns T, Yeeles K, Koshiaris C et al (2015) Effect of increased compulsion on readmission to hospital or disengagement from community services for patients with psychosis: follow-up of a cohort from the OCTET trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2:881–890. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00231-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kisely SR, Campbell LA (2014) Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (12):CD004408. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004408.pub4
- 20.Vergunst F, Jenkinson C, Burns T, Simon J (2014) Application of Sen’s capability approach to outcome measurement in mental health research: psychometric validation of a novel multi-dimensional instrument (OxCAP-MH). Hum Welf 3:1–4Google Scholar
- 24.Swartz MS, Wagner HR, Swanson JW et al (2002) The perceived coerciveness of involuntary outpatient commitment: findings from an experimental study. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law Online 30:207–217Google Scholar
- 25.SPSS (2011) IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. IBM Corp, ArmonkGoogle Scholar