Effectiveness Of Community Treatment Orders Research Articles

The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Community treatment orders have been introduced in many jurisdictions with increasing use over time. We conducted a rapid umbrella review to synthesise the quantitative and qualitative evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of their potential harms and benefits. A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO for relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Where available, participants on community treatment orders were compared with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023398767) and the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zeq35). In all, 17 publications from 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative synthesis of data from different systematic reviews was not possible. There were mixed findings on the effects of community treatment orders on health service use, and clinical, psychosocial or forensic outcomes. Whereas uncontrolled evidence suggested benefits, results were more equivocal from controlled studies and randomised controlled trials showed no effect. Any changes in health service use took several years to become apparent. There was evidence that better targeting of community treatment order use led to improved outcomes. Although there were other benefits, such as in mortality, findings were mostly rated as suggestive using predetermined and standardised criteria. Qualitative findings suggested that family members and clinicians were generally positive about the effect of community treatment orders but those subjected to them were more ambivalent. Any possible harms were under-researched, particularly in quantitative designs. The evidence for the benefits of community treatment orders remains inconclusive. At the very least, use should be better targeted to people most likely to benefit. More quantitative research on harms is indicated.

Effect of Community Treatment Orders on Mental Health Service Usage, Emergency Visits, and Violence: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Community treatment orders (CTOs) enable patients to actively engage in mental health services while being supervised in the community outside the hospital setting. However, the efficacy of CTOs remains controversial in terms of mental health services usage or service contacts, emergency visits, and violence. The databases PsychINFO, Embase, and Medline were searched on 11 March 2022 by 2 independent reviewers through the Covidence website (www.covidence.org). Randomised or non-randomised case-control studies and pre-post studies were included if they examine the effect of CTOs on service contacts, emergency visits, and violence in individuals with mental illnesses by comparing with control groups or pre-CTO conditions. Conflicts were resolved by consultation of the third independent reviewer. Sixteen studies provided sufficient data in the target outcome measures and were included in analysis. Variability in the risk of bias was high among studies. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for case-control studies and pre-post studies. For service contacts, a total of 11 studies with 66,192 patients reported changes in the number of service contacts under CTOs. In 6 case-control studies, a small non-significant increase in service contacts was observed in those under CTOs (Hedge's g = 0.241, z = 1.535, p = 0.13). In 5 pre-post studies, a large and significant increase in service contacts was noted after CTOs (Hedge's g = 0.830, z = 5.056, p < 0.001). For emergency visits, a total of 6 studies with 930 patients reported changes in the number of emergency visits under CTOs. In 2 case-control studies, a small non-significant increase in emergency visits was noted in those under CTOs (Hedge's g = -0.196, z = -1.567, p = 0.117). In 4 pre-post studies, a small significant decrease in emergency visits was noted after CTOs (Hedge's g = 0.553, z = 3.101, p = 0.002). For violence, a total of 2 pre-post studies reported a moderate significant reduction in violence after CTOs (Hedge's g = 0.482, z = 5.173, p < 0.001). Case-control studies showed inconclusive evidence, but pre-post studies showed significant effects of CTOs in promoting service contacts and reducing emergency visits and violence. Future studies on cost-effectiveness analysis and qualitative analysis for specific populations with various cultures and backgrounds are warranted.

Examining the health and criminal justice characteristics for young people on compulsory community treatment orders: An Australian birth cohort and data linkage study

BackgroundMost studies on the predictors and effectiveness of community treatment orders (CTOs) are restricted to health-related variables and do not consider forensic contacts as established by criminal justice databases or predictors from birth. We used linked administrative health and criminal justice data for a birth cohort in Queensland, Australia to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of people placed on CTOs. MethodsCTOs were identified from administrative data for hospital admissions and community mental health service contacts for a population cohort of 45,141 individuals born in Queensland in 1990. These data were linked with administrative court records, with individuals followed up to age 23/24 years. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine characteristics associated with CTO placement and Tobit regression analyses to examine factors predicting health and criminal justice outcomes in the following year. ResultsThere were 211 CTO cases by age 23/24 years, for whom it was possible to identify 413 controls on voluntary treatment. Non-affective psychoses [F20-F29] were the strongest predictors of CTO placement (ORadj = 4.07, 2.77–5.99) followed by a court appearance (ORadj = 1.99, 1.28–3.09). CTOs were associated with greater, not lower, subsequent psychiatric hospital admissions, inpatient bed-days and community mental health service contacts, although on sensitivity analyses psychiatric hospital admissions were the same as voluntary controls. CTOs were not associated with more subsequent court appearances despite higher rates of offending before CTO placement. ConclusionsBoth clinical and forensic variables can determine CTO placement and, on adjustment for these covariates, CTOs were not associated with reductions in psychiatric hospital admission, time spent as an inpatient, or subsequent court appearances. The latter finding might mean that CTOs reduce the risk of offending to that of voluntary controls.

The effectiveness of community treatment orders (CTOS) across Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust (BSMHFT)

AimsTo ascertain if CTOs ensure that patients are effectively treated in the community and maintain stability in their mental health.If a patient requires recall(+/- revocation) that this is done in a timely fashion in according to the 1983 Mental Health Act.BackgroundA number of studies have been inconclusive in determining the benefits of CTOs in reducing the re-admissions of “revolving door” patients In Assertive Outreach (AO). It is felt that CTOs have reduced readmission of patients due to the intensive input from community teams, decreased recall and subsequent revocation. Those admitted are thought to require fewer inpatient days. It is clear that many patients who require recall following non-engagement, non-compliance, will accept medication following RC review. However at present in BSMHFT patients can only be recalled if they are allocated a bed. Due to the national bed shortage, this has resulted in delays following decision to recall and thus early and effective treatment for patients. In this aspect it defeats the role of the CTO as per the 2007 MHA.MethodCTO data from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019 was obtained from all 6 AOT's in BSMHFT. The following factors were considered; 1.Time between decision to recall by RC and recall to inpatient facility2.Number of recalls converted to revocations3.Number of inpatient bed days if revoked4.Number of admissions on CTO5.Patient/family agreement of CTOResult98 CTO patients were recorded over this period. 19 out of 26 recalls had recall dates documented. 10 recalls were revoked due to relapse of mental illness. Average days from RC recall decision to actual recall or cancellation was 63.89 days. Main reasons for delay were bed unavailability and execution of warrant.Following revocation, average inpatient bed days was 103.71. 41% of families agreed with CTOs, 36% of patients contested their CTO.ConclusionOver a quarter of patients on CTO were recalled to hospital however, less than half of these had their CTO revoked. The remainder accepted treatment following urgent community review whilst on the bed list. Evidently the majority of patients didn't need admission. With the ongoing bed crisis, alternative avenues need to be sought to ensure prompt treatment and prevent relapse.A CTO suite designed for recall could be the solution for the future.

Cost and quality-of-life impacts of community treatment orders (CTOs) for patients with psychosis: economic evaluation of the OCTET trial

PurposeCurrent RCT and meta-analyses have not found any effect of community treatment orders (CTOs) on hospital or social outcomes. Assumed positive impacts of CTOs on quality-of-life outcomes and reduced hospital costs are potentially in conflict with patient autonomy. Therefore, an analysis of the cost and quality-of-life consequences of CTOs was conducted within the OCTET trial.MethodsThe economic evaluation was carried out comparing patients (n = 328) with psychosis discharged from involuntary hospitalisation either to treatment under a CTO (CTO group) or voluntary status via Section 17 leave (non-CTO group) from the health and social care and broader societal perspectives (including cost implication of informal family care and legal procedures). Differences in costs and outcomes defined as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based on the EQ-5D-3L or capability-weighted life years (CWLYs) based on the OxCAP-MH were assessed over 12 months (£, 2012/13 tariffs).ResultsMean total costs from the health and social care perspective [CTO: £35,595 (SD: £44,886); non-CTO: £36,003 (SD: £41,406)] were not statistically significantly different in any of the analyses or cost categories. Mental health hospitalisation costs contributed to more than 85% of annual health and social care costs. Informal care costs were significantly higher in the CTO group, in which there were also significantly more manager hearings and tribunals. No difference in health-related quality of life or capability wellbeing was found between the groups.ConclusionCTOs are unlikely to be cost-effective. No evidence supports the hypothesis that CTOs decrease hospitalisation costs or improve quality of life. Future decisions should consider impacts outside the healthcare sector such as higher informal care costs and legal procedure burden of CTOs.

Community treatment orders and associations with readmission rates and duration of psychiatric hospital admission: a controlled electronic case register study

ObjectivesLimited evidence is available regarding the effect of community treatment orders (CTOs) on mortality and readmission to psychiatric hospital. We compared clinical outcomes between patients placed on CTOs to a...

Use of community treatment orders and their outcomes: an observational study

Background Community treatment orders are widely used in England. It is unclear whether their use varies between patients, places and services, or if they are associated with better patient outcomes. Objectives To examine variation in the use of community treatment orders and their associations with patient outcomes and health-care costs. Design Secondary analysis using multilevel statistical modelling. Setting England, including 61 NHS mental health provider trusts. Participants A total of 69,832 patients eligible to be subject to a community treatment order. Main outcome measures Use of community treatment orders and time subject to community treatment order; re-admission and total time in hospital after the start of a community treatment order; and mortality. Data sources The primary data source was the Mental Health Services Data Set. Mental Health Services Data Set data were linked to mortality records and local area deprivation statistics for England. Results There was significant variation in community treatment order use between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Most variation arose from substantially different practice in a small number of providers. Community treatment order patients were more likely to be in the ‘severe psychotic’ care cluster grouping, male or black. There was also significant variation between service providers and local areas in the time patients remained on community treatment orders. Although slightly more community treatment order patients were re-admitted than non-community treatment order patients during the study period (36.9% vs. 35.6%), there was no significant difference in time to first re-admission (around 32 months on average for both). There was some evidence that the rate of re-admission differed between community treatment order and non-community treatment order patients according to care cluster grouping. Community treatment order patients spent 7.5 days longer, on average, in admission than non-community treatment order patients over the study period. This difference remained when other patient and local area characteristics were taken into account. There was no evidence of significant variation between service providers in the effect of community treatment order on total time in admission. Community treatment order patients were less likely to die than non-community treatment order patients, after taking account of other patient and local area characteristics (odds ratio 0.69, 95% credible interval 0.60 to 0.81). Limitations Confounding by indication and potential bias arising from missing data within the Mental Health Services Data Set. Data quality issues precluded inclusion of patients who were subject to community treatment orders more than once. Conclusions Community treatment order use varied between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Community treatment order use was not associated with shorter time to re-admission or reduced time in hospital to a statistically significant degree. We found no evidence that the effectiveness of community treatment orders varied to a significant degree between provider trusts, nor that community treatment orders were associated with reduced mental health treatment costs. Our findings support the view that community treatment orders in England are not effective in reducing future admissions or time spent in hospital. We provide preliminary evidence of an association between community treatment order use and reduced rate of death. Future work These findings need to be replicated among patients who are subject to community treatment order more than once. The association between community treatment order use and reduced mortality requires further investigation. Study registration The study was approved by the University of Warwick’s Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee (REGO-2015-1623). Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

What Families Have to Say about Community Treatment Orders (CTOs)

Qualitative studies provide a different kind of understanding of the effectiveness of community treatment orders (CTOs) by exploring the perspectives of stakeholders. This article documents a systematic review of 12 qualitative studies that explored the views of families of individuals on a CTO. Relevant databases and grey literature were searched. Themes were identified: the benefits of CTOs outweigh the disadvantages, CTOs increased their involvement in care, and families were dissatisfied with aspects of the CTO process. Recommendations include how to maximize the benefits of CTOs, reduce administrative burdens and employ strategies to increase involvement of families in the care of their loved ones.

Community treatment orders increase community care and delay readmission while in force: Results from a large population-based study.

There is debate about the effectiveness of community treatment orders in the management of people with a severe mental illness. While some case-control studies suggest community treatment orders reduce hospital readmissions, three randomised controlled trials find no effects. These randomised controlled trials measure outcomes over a longer period than the community treatment order duration and assess the combined effectiveness of community treatment orders both during and after the intervention. This study examines the effectiveness of community treatment orders in a large population-based sample, restricting observation to the period under a community treatment order. All persons ( n = 5548) receiving a community treatment order in New South Wales, Australia, over the period 2004-2009 were identified. Controls were matched using a propensity score based on demographic, clinical and prior care variables. A baseline period equal to each case's duration of treatment was constructed. Treatment effects were compared using zero-inflated negative binomial regression, adjusting for demographics, clinical characteristics and pre-community treatment order care. Compared to matched controls, people on community treatment orders were less likely to be readmitted (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval = [0.84, 0.97]) and had a significantly longer time to their first readmission (incidence rate ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval = [1.36, 1.58]), fewer hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval = [0.84, 0.96]) and more days of community care (incidence rate ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = [1.51, 1.59]). Increased community care and delayed first admission were found for all durations of community treatment order care. Reduced odds of readmission were limited to people with 6 months or less of community treatment order care, and reduced number of admissions and days in hospital to people with prolonged (>24 months) community treatment order care. In this large population-based study, community treatment orders increase community care and delay rehospitalisation while they are in operation. Some negative findings in this field may reflect the use of observation periods longer than the period of active intervention.

Are Randomized Control Trials the Best Method to Assess the Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders?

Many jurisdictions have enacted community treatment order (CTO) legislation that requires a person, who suffers from a severe mental disorder, to follow a treatment plan when living in the community. CTOs have been a source of debate because of controversies on whether evidence of effectiveness should only be considered from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are considered the "gold standard" method to evaluate effectiveness of simple therapeutic interventions such as medication, but they are problematic for evaluation of complex interventions because valid attribution of causation in complex interventions is not guaranteed with RCTs. CTOs are complex interventions that require the interaction of many individuals and organizations to achieve their effects and effectiveness research must measure these complexities of delivery and outcomes. This paper examines conceptual, methodological and analytical challenges of CTO research within the context of RCTs and other research designs. It also discusses the current state of knowledge on effectiveness of CTOs. Finally, we suggest a way forward by presenting alternative causal inference approaches and potential models for evaluation complex interventions, such as CTOs. We propose that these approaches should be used alongside other research designs in a nuanced approach that may involve using findings from initial studies to refine the intervention and/or its implementation.

Erratum.

Kisely S, Hall K. An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled evidence for the effectiveness of community treatment orders. Can J Psychiatry. 2014;59(10):561-564. (Original DOI: 10.1177/070674371405901010) On page 563, Figure 1 was printed with incorrect values. The correct values for Figure 1 are below: [Figure: see text].

The use of community treatment orders in competent patients is not justified

Empirical evidence for the effectiveness of community treatment orders (CTOs) is at best mixed. We examine CTOs through the prism of human rights and discrimination, bearing the evidence in mind, and argue that a necessary condition for their use is that a person lacks decision-making capacity.

Associations between compulsory community treatment and continuity of care in a three year follow-up of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET) cohort

BackgroundMost studies investigating the effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) use readmission to hospital as the primary outcome. Another aim of introducing CTOs was to improve continuity of care. Our study was a 3-year prospective follow-up which tested for associations between CTOs and continuity of care.MethodsOur study sample included 333 patients recruited to the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET). We collected data on continuity of care using eight previously operationalized measures. We analysed the association between CTOs and continuity of care in two ways. First, we tested the association between continuity of care and OCTET randomisation arm (CTO versus voluntary care via Section 17 leave). Second, we analysed continuity of care and CTO exposure independent of randomisation; using any exposure to CTO, number of days on CTO, and proportion of outpatient days on CTO as outcomes.Results197 (61%) patients were made subject to CTO during the 36-month follow-up. Randomisation to CTO arm was significantly associated with having a higher proportion of clinical documents copied to the user but no other measures of continuity. Having a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO (irrespective of randomisation) was associated with fewer 60 day breaks without community contact. A sensitivity analysis found that any exposure to CTO and a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO were associated with fewer days between community mental health team contacts and 60 day breaks without contact.ConclusionWe found some evidence of an association between CTO use and better engagement with the community team in terms of increased contact and fewer breaks in care. Those with CTO experience had a higher number of inpatient admissions which may have acted as a mediator of this association. We found limited evidence for an association between CTO use and other measures of continuity of care.

Coercion in mental health: a trial of the effectiveness of community treatment orders and an investigation of informal coercion in community mental health care

BackgroundCoercion comprisesformal coercionorcompulsion[treatment under a section of the Mental Health Act (MHA)] andinformal coercion(a range of treatment pressures, includingleverage). Community compulsion was introduced in England and Wales as community treatment orders (CTOs) in 2008, despite equivocal evidence of effectiveness. Little is known about the nature and operation of informal coercion.DesignThe programme comprised three studies, with associated substudies: Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) – a study of CTOs comprising a randomised controlled trial comparing treatment on CTO to voluntary treatment via Section 17 Leave (leave of absence during treatment under section of the MHA), with 12-month follow-up, an economic evaluation, a qualitative study, an ethical analysis, the development of a new measure of capabilities and a detailed legal analysis of the trial design; OCTET Follow-up Study – a follow-up at 36 months; and Use of Leverage Tools to Improve Adherence in community Mental Health care (ULTIMA) – a study of informal coercion comprising a quantitative cross-sectional study of leverage, a qualitative study of patient and professional perceptions, and an ethical analysis.ParticipantsParticipants in the OCTET Study were 336 patients with psychosis diagnoses, currently admitted involuntarily and considered for ongoing community treatment under supervision. Participants in the ULTIMA Study were 417 patients from Assertive Outreach Teams, Community Mental Health Teams and substance misuse services.OutcomesThe OCTET Trial primary outcome was psychiatric readmission. Other outcomes included measures of hospitalisation, a range of clinical and social measures, and a newly developed measure of capabilities – the Oxford Capabilities Questionnaire – Mental Health. For the follow-up study, the primary outcome was the level of disengagement during the 36 months.ResultsCommunity treatment order use did not reduce the rate of readmission [(59 (36%) of 166 patients in the CTO group vs. 60 (36%) of 167 patients in the non-CTO group; adjusted relative risk 1.0 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.33)] or any other outcome. There were no differences for any subgroups. There was no evidence that it might be cost-effective. Qualitative work suggested that CTOs’ (perceived) focus on medication adherence may influence how they are experienced. No general ethical justification was found for the use of a CTO regime. At 36-month follow-up, only 19 patients (6% of 329 patients) were no longer in regular contact with services. Longer duration of compulsion was associated with longer time to disengagement (p = 0.023) and fewer periods of discontinuity (p &lt; 0.001). There was no difference in readmission outcomes over 36 months. Patients with longer CTO duration spent fewer nights in hospital. One-third (35%) of the ULTIMA sample reported lifetime experiences of leverage, lower than in the USA (51%), but patterns of leverage experience were similar. Reporting leverage made little difference to patients’ perceived coercion. Patients’ experiences of pressure were wide-ranging and pervasive, and perceived to come from family, friends and themselves, as well as professionals. Professionals were committed to patient-centred approaches, but felt obliged to assert authority when patients relapsed. We propose a five-step framework for determining the ethical status of offers by mental health professionals and give detailed guidance for professionals about how to exercise leverage.ConclusionsCommunity Treatment Orders do not deliver clinical or social functioning benefits for patients. In the absence of further trials, moves should be made to restrict or stop their use. Informal coercion is widespread and takes different forms.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN73110773.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Doubting the Doubts About the Clinical Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders

Doubting the Doubts About the Clinical Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders

Evidence-Based Practice in Use of CTOs

Drs Karagianis, Hastings, and Gray disagree with our assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of community treatment orders (CTOs). In our reviews of studies from Canada and abroad, we apply recognised principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to assess the quality of the research. We found some studies show therapeutic benefits for CTOs. These include studies commissioned by governments, often conducted by nonacademic consultancies and not subject to peer review, and a number of small-scale, uncontrolled studies. These are the kinds of studies conducted in Canada. They do not provide robust evidence for efficacy of CTOs, especially when few high-quality studies report positive outcomes, and all the randomized studies and the best nonrandomized ones find no evidence of therapeutic benefit.

Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders: The International Evidence.

Community treatment orders (CTOs) exist in more than 75 jurisdictions worldwide. This review outlines findings from the international literature on CTO effectiveness. The article draws on 2 comprehensive systematic reviews of the literature published before 2013, then uses the same search terms to identify studies published between 2013 and 2015. The focus is on what the literature as a whole tells us about CTO effectiveness, with particular emphasis on the strength and weaknesses of different methodologies. The results from more than 50 nonrandomized studies show mixed results. Some show benefits from CTOs while others show none on the most frequently reported outcomes of readmission, time in hospital, and community service use. Results from the 3 existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show no effect of CTOs on a wider range of outcome measures except that patients on CTOs are less likely than controls to be a victim of crime. Patients on CTOs are, however, likely to have their liberty restricted for significantly longer periods of time. Meta-analyses pooling patient data from RCTs and high quality nonrandomized studies also find no evidence of patient benefit, and systematic reviews come to the same conclusion. There is no evidence of patient benefit from current CTO outcome studies. This casts doubt over the usefulness and ethics of CTOs. To remove uncertainty, future research must be designed as RCTs.

Canadian Studies on the Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders.

Community treatment orders (CTOs) for people with severe mental illnesses are used across most of Canada. It is unclear if they can reduce health service use, or improve clinical and social outcomes. This review summarizes the evidence from studies conducted in Canada. A systematic literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE to March 2015 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were quantitative and qualitative studies undertaken in Canada that presented data on the effect of CTOs on outcomes. Nine papers from 8 studies were included in the review. Four studies compared health service use before and after compulsory treatment as well as engagement with psychosocial supports. Three were qualitative evaluations of patients, family, or staff and the last was a postal survey of psychiatrists. Hospital readmission rates and days spent in hospital were all reduced following CTO placement, while outpatient attendance and participation in psychiatric services and housing all improved. Family members and clinicians were generally positive about the effect of CTOs but patients were ambivalent. However, the strength of the evidence was limited as many of the studies were small, only one included control subjects, and there was no adjustment for potential confounders using either matching or multivariate analyses. Only 2 qualitative studies included the views of patients and their families. The evidence base for the use of CTOs in Canada is limited and this lack of Canadian research is in marked contrast to other countries where there have been large studies that have used randomized or matched control subjects. Their use should be kept under review.

Community treatment orders: learning from experiences of service users, practitioners and nearest relatives

Background: The effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) has been examined previously. However, few studies have explored the significance of service user and practitioner understandings.Aims: The study explored the experiences of service users, practitioners and nearest relatives, to identify key factors and good practice in relation to CTOs.Method: A study of CTOs in a mental health NHS Trust in Southern England, including 72 semi-structured interviews, analysed thematically.Results: CTOs were perceived as helpful in certain circumstances for the “right” service user. Factors influencing effectiveness included recognition of the containing elements of the CTO, a respect for its legal authority and an acceptance of conditions.Conclusions: The perceptions of service users have an important role in determining the value and potential effectiveness of CTOs. A consideration of these issues should be integral to the process of assessing whether a CTO is appropriate in individual cases.

An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled evidence for the effectiveness of community treatment orders.

It is unclear whether community treatment orders (CTOs) for people with severe mental illnesses can reduce health service use, or improve clinical and social outcomes. Randomized controlled trials of CTOs are rare because of ethical and logistical concerns. This meta-analysis updates available evidence. A systematic literature search was performed of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register, Science Citation Index, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase to November 2013. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing CTOs with standard care including those where control subjects received voluntary care, for most of the trial. Three studies provided 749 subjects for the meta-analysis. Two compared compulsory treatment with entirely voluntary care, while the third had control subjects receiving voluntary treatment for the bulk of the time. Compared with control subjects, CTOs did not reduce readmissions (risk ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16) or bed days (mean difference [MD] -16.36; 95% CI -40.8 to 8.05) in the subsequent 12 months (n = 749). Moreover, there were no significant differences in psychiatric symptoms (standardized MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.19; n = 331) or the Global Assessment of Functioning (MD -1.36; 95% CI -4.07 to 1.35; n = 335). Only including the 2 studies that compared compulsory treatment with entirely voluntary care made no difference to the results. CTOs may not lead to significant differences in readmission, social functioning, or symptomatology, compared with standard care. Their use should be kept under review.