首页 正文

BJPsych open. 2025 Mar 21;11(2):e57. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2025.23 0

Variations between, and within, jurisdictions in the use of community treatment orders and other compulsory community treatment: study of 402 060 people across four Australian states

四个澳大利亚州的402060人的研究:司法管辖区内外在使用社区治疗令和其他强制性社区治疗方面的差异 翻译改进

Steve Kisely  1  2  3  4  5, Claudia Bull  1  2, Tessa Zirnsak  6, Vrinda Edan  7, Morgan Gould  6, Sharon Lawn  8  9, Edwina Light  10, Chris Maylea  11, Giles Newton-Howes  12, Christopher James Ryan  13  14  15, Penelope Weller  16, Lisa Brophy  5  6

作者单位 +展开

作者单位

  • 1 Southern Clinical School, The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Australia.
  • 2 Metro South Mental Health and Addictions Services, Metro South Health Service, Woolloongabba, Australia.
  • 3 Griffith Criminology Institute (GCI), Griffith University, Australia.
  • 4 Departments of Psychiatry, Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Canada.
  • 5 The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, Melbourne, Australia.
  • 6 Social Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Australia.
  • 7 Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
  • 8 Lived Experience Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
  • 9 College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Australia.
  • 10 Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia.
  • 11 Law School, La Trobe University, Australia.
  • 12 Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand.
  • 13 Discipline of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of New South Wales, Australia.
  • 14 School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Sydney, Australia.
  • 15 Department of Psychiatry, St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, Australia.
  • 16 Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University, Australia.
  • DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2025.23 PMID: 40116594

    摘要 Ai翻译

    Background: The use of compulsory community treatment (CCT) in Australia is some of the highest worldwide despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Even within Australia, use varies widely across jurisdictions despite general similarities in legislation and health services. However, there is much less information on whether variation occurs within the same jurisdiction.

    Aims: To measure variations in the use of CCT in a standardised way across the following four Australian jurisdictions: Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria. We also investigated associated sociodemographic variables.

    Methods: We used aggregated administrative data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

    Results: There were data on 402 060 individuals who were in contact with specialist mental health services, of whom 51 351 (12.8%) were receiving CCT. Percentages varied from 8% in NSW to 17.6% in South Australia. There were also wide variations within jurisdictions. In NSW, prevalence ranged from 2% to 13%, in Victoria from 6% to 24%, in Queensland from 11% to 25% and in South Australia from 6% to 36%. People in contact with services who were male, single and aged between 25 and 44 years old were significantly more likely to be subject to CCT, as were people living in metropolitan areas or those born outside Oceania.

    Conclusions: There are marked variations in the use of CCT both within and between Australian jurisdictions. It is unclear how much of this variation is determined by clinical need and these findings may be of relevance to jurisdictions with similar clinician-initiated orders.

    Keywords: Community treatment orders; administrative data; compulsory community treatment; out-patient commitment.

    Keywords:community treatment orders; compulsory community treatment

    Copyright © BJPsych open. 中文内容为AI机器翻译,仅供参考!

    相关内容

    期刊名:BJPsych Open

    缩写:

    ISSN:2056-4724

    e-ISSN:2056-4724

    IF/分区:/

    文章目录 更多期刊信息

    全文链接
    引文链接
    复制
    已复制!
    推荐内容
    Variations between, and within, jurisdictions in the use of community treatment orders and other compulsory community treatment: study of 402 060 people across four Australian states