Skip to main content
. 2017 Mar 17;2017(3):CD004408. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004408.pub5

Summary of findings for the main comparison. COURT ORDERED OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT compared with ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY CARE for people with severe mental disorders.

COMPULSORY COMMUNITY AND INVOLUNTARY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE WITH SEVERE MENTAL DISORDERS
Patient or population: people with severe mental disorders
Settings: patients in community settings
Intervention: COURT ORDERED OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT
Comparison: ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY CARE
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
VOLUNTARY CARE COURT ORDERED OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT
Health service outcomes: 1. Readmission to hospital by 11 to 12 months Study population RR 0.98 
 (0.79 to 1.21) 416
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,2
460 per 1000 451 per 1000 
 (363 to 557)
Medium risk population
446 per 1000 437 per 1000 
 (352 to 540)
Health service outcomes: 4. Compliance with medication by 11 to 12 months Study population RR 0.99 
 (0.83 to 1.19) 416
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,2
505 per 1000 500 per 1000 
 (419 to 601)
Medium risk population
554 per 1000 548 per 1000 
 (460 to 659)
Participant level outcomes: 2. Social functioning: trouble with police by 11 to 12 months, at least 1 arrest Study population RR 0.97 
 (0.62 to 1.52) 416
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,2
158 per 1000 153 per 1000 
 (98 to 240)
Medium risk population
156 per 1000 151 per 1000 
 (97 to 237)
Participant level outcomes: 2. Social functioning: trouble with police by 11 to 12 months, ever arrested/picked up by police for violence against a person Study population RR 0.82 
 (0.56 to 1.21) 416
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,2
208 per 1000 171 per 1000 
 (116 to 252)
Medium risk population
156 per 1000 128 per 1000 
 (87 to 189)
Participant level outcomes: 3. Social functioning: homeless by 11 to 12 months Study population RR 0.67 
 (0.39 to 1.15) 416
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,2
134 per 1000 90 per 1000 
 (52 to 154)
Medium risk population
145 per 1000 97 per 1000 
 (57 to 167)
Participant level outcomes: 5. Quality of life: victimisation by 11 to 12 months Study population RR 0.5 
 (0.31 to 0.8) 264
 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,3
311 per 1000 156 per 1000 
 (96 to 249)
Medium risk population
311 per 1000 156 per 1000 
 (96 to 249)
Participant level outcomes: 6. Satisfaction with care/adverse events: perceived coercion by 11 to 12 months Study population RR 1.36 
 (0.97 to 1.89) 416
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,2
218 per 1000 296 per 1000 
 (211 to 412)
Medium risk population
227 per 1000 309 per 1000 
 (220 to 429)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Allocation concealment and blinding unclear: serious risk of bias, downgraded by one level.

2 Only 2 studies, both from the USA: serious imprecision, downgraded by one level.

3 Only 1 study: serious imprecision, downgraded by one level.