Community treatment orders: A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q1 LAW International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2023.101901
Marie-Hélène Goulet , Clara Lessard-Deschênes , Pierre Pariseau-Legault , Richard Breton , Anne G. Crocker
{"title":"Community treatment orders: A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives","authors":"Marie-Hélène Goulet ,&nbsp;Clara Lessard-Deschênes ,&nbsp;Pierre Pariseau-Legault ,&nbsp;Richard Breton ,&nbsp;Anne G. Crocker","doi":"10.1016/j.ijlp.2023.101901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>For people with a serious mental disorder, a community treatment order (CTO) is a legal response that requires them to undergo psychiatric treatment unwillingly under certain conditions. Qualitative studies have explored the perspectives of individuals involved in CTOs, including persons with lived experiences of a CTO, family members and mental health care providers, who are directly involved in these procedures. However, few studies have integrated their different perspectives.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>This descriptive and qualitative study aimed to explore the experience associated with a CTO in hospital and community settings among individuals with a history of CTO, relatives, and mental health care providers. Using a participatory research approach, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 participants. The data were reviewed using content analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Three themes and seven sub-themes were identified: 1) differential positions as a function of meaning conferred to CTOs; 2) a risk management tool; and 3) coping strategies used to deal with CTOs. Overall, relatives' and mental health care providers' perspectives tended to be in opposition to those who went under a CTO.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In a context of recovery-oriented care, more research is needed to reconcile the seemingly contradictory positions of individual with experiential knowledge and the legal leverage that deprives them of their fundamental right to autonomy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47930,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252723000444","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

For people with a serious mental disorder, a community treatment order (CTO) is a legal response that requires them to undergo psychiatric treatment unwillingly under certain conditions. Qualitative studies have explored the perspectives of individuals involved in CTOs, including persons with lived experiences of a CTO, family members and mental health care providers, who are directly involved in these procedures. However, few studies have integrated their different perspectives.

Method

This descriptive and qualitative study aimed to explore the experience associated with a CTO in hospital and community settings among individuals with a history of CTO, relatives, and mental health care providers. Using a participatory research approach, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 participants. The data were reviewed using content analysis.

Results

Three themes and seven sub-themes were identified: 1) differential positions as a function of meaning conferred to CTOs; 2) a risk management tool; and 3) coping strategies used to deal with CTOs. Overall, relatives' and mental health care providers' perspectives tended to be in opposition to those who went under a CTO.

Conclusions

In a context of recovery-oriented care, more research is needed to reconcile the seemingly contradictory positions of individual with experiential knowledge and the legal leverage that deprives them of their fundamental right to autonomy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区治疗顺序:利益相关者视角的定性研究
引言对于患有严重精神障碍的人来说,社区治疗令(CTO)是一种法律回应,要求他们在某些条件下不情愿地接受精神治疗。定性研究探讨了参与CTO的个人的观点,包括有CTO生活经历的人、家庭成员和直接参与这些程序的心理健康护理提供者。然而,很少有研究综合了他们的不同观点。方法本描述性和定性研究旨在探索有CTO病史的个人、亲属和心理健康护理提供者在医院和社区环境中与CTO相关的经历。采用参与式研究方法,对35名参与者进行了个人半结构化访谈。使用内容分析对数据进行了审查。结果确定了三个主题和七个子主题:1)CTO的不同地位是意义的函数;2) 风险管理工具;以及3)用于处理CTO的应对策略。总的来说,亲属和心理健康护理提供者的观点往往与那些接受CTO的人相反。结论在以康复为导向的护理背景下,需要更多的研究来调和个人与经验知识之间看似矛盾的立场,以及剥夺他们基本自主权的法律杠杆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
54
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Psychiatry is intended to provide a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and information among professionals concerned with the interface of law and psychiatry. There is a growing awareness of the need for exploring the fundamental goals of both the legal and psychiatric systems and the social implications of their interaction. The journal seeks to enhance understanding and cooperation in the field through the varied approaches represented, not only by law and psychiatry, but also by the social sciences and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Recent research involving consent, alcohol intoxication, and memory: Implications for expert testimony in sexual assault cases Comparison of sociodemographic, clinical, and alexithymia characteristics of schizophrenia patients with and without criminal records Assessing mental capacity in the context of abuse and neglect: A relational lens Mediating the court procedural justice–delinquency relationship with certainty perceptions and legitimacy beliefs RECAPACITA project: Comparing neuropsychological profiles in people with severe mental disorders, with and without capacity modification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1