Steadman 2001.

Methods	Allocation: randomised, described. Blinding: unclear*. Duration: 11 months.
Participants	Diagnosis: majority had psychosis; diagnostic criteria not stated. n = 152.* Age: > 18 years. Sex: 94 M, 48 F. History: poor compliance with services when discharged. Exclusion criteria: history of violence.
Interventions	1. CCT: enhanced service package + intensive, court‐ordered compulsory OPC, including involuntary medication for people thought by court to lack capacity to give informed consent. n = 78. 2. Standard care: enhanced service package with inpatient assessment and comprehensive discharge treatment plan in which participants participated, case management and oversight by OPC co‐ordinating plan. n = 64.**
Outcomes	Service use: number of admissions, compliance with medication. Social functioning: number of arrests, homelessness. Satisfaction with care: perceived coercion (MAES). We were unable to use: Service use: hospitalisation; length of stay (no SD), remaining in contact (leaving the study early) (data unusable). Mental state: PANSS (no SD). Global state: GAF (no SD). Quality of life: LBQL (no SD). Adverse effects: various adverse effects (no SD).
Notes	ITT analysis. * Study did not specifically mention blinding but did use self‐report measures for at least some of the outcomes, which are effectively self‐blinding * 142 participants completed baseline interview, 10 excluded from all reporting (7 from the CTO group and 3 from the controls). ** There was a suggestion that members of the control group and their case managers thought that they were actually on OPC.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The study used a random number list to identify assignment to either the intervention or control group. Random number list was generated by computer, which then split 200 numbers between groups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear. The printed list was maintained in the research team's office in a locked file. When the treatment team had completed their treatment plan, they called the research team who checked the computer list to see whether the client was to be assigned to the experimental or comparison group.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No specific mention in the study. Although self‐report measures were used for at least some of the outcomes, it was unlikely participants, clinicians or assessors were blind to treatment status. There was also confusion that resulted in some control participants and their clinicians believing that they were in the intervention group.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Only 57% to 68% of the participants completed interviews at 1, 5 and 11 months after hospital discharge. Only some outcomes were assessed by ITT analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear from paper.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unclear, no conflict of interests reported. The New York Police did not bring people for assessment when they breached their treatment orders. Therefore, there was no consequence to the order as intended by the law.