<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Georg Høyer</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olav Nyttingnes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jorun Rugkåsa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ekaterina Sharashova</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tone Breines Simonsen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anne Høye</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Henriette Riley</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Impact of introducing capacity-based mental health legislation on the use of community treatment orders in Norway: case registry study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BJPsych Open</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">community treatment orders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CTO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effekt</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">impact</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">legislation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">lov</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">lovendring</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TUD</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tvungent vern uten døgnopphold</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">01/2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/impact-of-introducing-capacitybased-mental-health-legislation-on-the-use-of-community-treatment-orders-in-norway-case-registry-study/8C1302C4705F3887004051947463A7F6</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Background&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 2017, a capacity-based criterion was added to the Norwegian Mental Health Act, stating that those with capacity to consent to treatment cannot be subjected to involuntary care unless there is risk to themselves or others. This was expected to reduce incidence and prevalence rates, and the duration of episodes of involuntary care, in particular regarding community treatment orders (CTOs).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aims&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The aim was to investigate whether the capacity-based criterion had the expected impact on the use of CTOs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Method&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This retrospective case register study included two catchment areas serving 16% of the Norwegian population (aged &amp;ge;18). In total, 760 patients subject to 921 CTOs between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included to compare the use of CTOs 2 years before and 2 years after the legal reform.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Results&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;CTO incidence rates and duration did not change after the reform, whereas prevalence rates were significantly reduced. This was explained by a sharp increase in termination of CTOs in the year of the reform, after which it reduced and settled on a slightly higher leven than before the reform. We found an unexpected significant increase in the use of involuntary treatment orders for patients on CTOs after the reform.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conclusions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The expected impact on CTO use of introducing a capacity-based criterion in the Norwegian Mental Health Act was not confirmed by our study. Given the existing challenges related to defining and assessing decision-making capacity, studies examining the validity of capacity assessments and their impact on the use of coercion in clinical practice are urgently needed.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tud</style></label></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Henriette Riley</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ekaterina Sharashova</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jorun Rugkåsa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olav Nyttingnes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tore Buer Christensen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ann-Torunn Andersen Austegard</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Maria Løvsletten</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bjørn Lau</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Georg Høyer</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Out-patient commitment order use in Norway: incidence and prevalence rates, duration and use of mental health services from the Norwegian Outpatient Commitment Study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BJPsych Open</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Community Treatment Order</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OCT</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Outpatient commitment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">09/2019</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252718301900</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;h3 id=&quot;sec_a1title&quot;&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;__p1&quot;&gt;Norway authorised out-patient commitment in 1961, but there is a lack of representative and complete data on the use of out-patient commitment orders.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;sec_a2title&quot;&gt;Aims&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;__p2&quot;&gt;To establish the incidence and prevalence rates on the use of out-patient commitment in Norway, and how these vary across service areas. Further, to study variations in out-patient commitment across service areas, and use of in-patient services before and after implementation of out-patient commitment orders. Finally, to identify determinants for the duration of out-patient commitment orders and time to readmission.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;sec_a3title&quot;&gt;Method&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;__p3&quot;&gt;Retrospective case register study based on medical files of all patients with an out-patient commitment order in 2008&amp;ndash;2012 in six catchment areas in Norway, covering one-third of the Norwegian population aged 18 years or more. For a subsample of patients, we recorded use of in-patient care 3 years before and after their first-ever out-patient commitment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;sec_a4title&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;__p4&quot;&gt;Annual incidence varied between 20.7 and 28.4, and prevalence between 36.5 and 48.9, per 100 000 population aged 18 years or above. Rates differed significantly between catchment areas. Mean out-patient commitment duration was 727 days (s.d. = 889). Use of in-patient care decreased significantly in the 3 years after out-patient commitment compared with the 3 years before. Use of antipsychotic medication through the whole out-patient commitment period and fewer in-patient episodes in the 3 years before out-patient commitment predicted longer time to readmission.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;sec_a5title&quot;&gt;Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;__p5&quot;&gt;Mechanisms behind the pronounced variations in use of out-patient commitment between sites call for further studies. Use of in-patient care was significantly reduced in the 3 years after a first-ever out-patient commitment order was made.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;sec_a6title&quot;&gt;Declaration of interest&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;__p6&quot;&gt;None.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sep; 5(5): e75</style></issue><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TUD</style></label></record></records></xml>