Professor Maylea says the use of community treatment orders, which authorise the provision of compulsory mental health treatment, are widespread.
Despite this, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating their effectiveness.
“Community treatment orders were introduced to reduce reliance on hospital-based care. But their use is now outpacing population growth – which raises questions about overuse and poses fundamental concerns for human rights.”
Professor Maylea’s review found no conclusive evidence that community treatment orders meet their intended aims, such as reducing hospital admissions, preventing long-term relapse, or improving physical health in a sustained way.
“Instead, the evidence suggests that they perpetuate stigma, intensify feelings of coercion and divert attention from social determinants of mental health,” he says. “And, in some cases, involuntary treatment is functioning as a substitute for high-quality, voluntary care.”
The insights from Professor Maylea’s review have the potential to shape mental health reforms.
“The research provides a platform for human rights advocates, consumer leaders and communities to pursue safer, more equitable and less coercive approaches to mental health care.”
“Clinicians can also draw upon this evidence to focus on strengthening therapeutic relationships, person-centred strategies and supported decision-making, rather than depending on involuntary measures.”
“Ultimately, the work underscores the importance of addressing underlying gaps in support services.”
Read more and find out more about the Factors Affecting Community Treatment Orders Study.
