Involuntary community treatment

Swanson et al (2000) reanalysed the results of the North Carolina trial (Swartz et al, 1999) and their findings are becoming increasingly influential in current debates about mental health legislation in the UK. [...]based on everyone in the trial the intention-to-treat (ITT) effect of randomisation...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBritish journal of psychiatry Vol. 191; no. 4; p. 358
Main Authors Hotopf, M., Dunn, G., Owen, G., Churchill, R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Cambridge University Press 01.10.2007
Subjects
Aggression
Commitment of Mentally Ill
Community Mental Health Services
Humans
Involuntary
Legislation
Mental Disorders - therapy
Mental health
Psychiatry
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Risk reduction
Selection effects
Short term
Treatment Outcome
Violence
Violence - prevention & control
North Carolina
United Kingdom > UK
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Swanson et al (2000) reanalysed the results of the North Carolina trial (Swartz et al, 1999) and their findings are becoming increasingly influential in current debates about mental health legislation in the UK. [...]based on everyone in the trial the intention-to-treat (ITT) effect of randomisation to an involuntary out-patient commitment (OPC) was of a modest and non-significant reduction in violence (risk difference of 4.5%). [...]a post hoc comparison of the outcomes in groups defined by management decisions or patient behaviour following randomisation is potentially subject to selection effects (hidden confounding).
Bibliography:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Correspondence-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Letter to the Editor-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Commentary-1
ISSN:0007-1250
1472-1465
DOI:10.1192/bjp.191.4.358