<?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%">Nina Camilla Wergeland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Åshild Fause</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Astrid Karine Weber</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anett Beatrix Osnes Fause</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%">Capacity-based legislation in Norway has so far scarcely infuenced the daily life and responsibilities of patients’ carers: a qualitative study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMC Psychiatry</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Capacity-based legislation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coercion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Community Treatment Order</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Family-carer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Patient autonomy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Norwegian mental health act</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">02/2023</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://hdl.handle.net/10037/30648</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;p&gt;Background - When capacity-based mental health legislation was introduced in Norway in 2017, there was concern about the consequences of change in the law for patients&amp;rsquo;carer whose community treatment order was revoked as a result of being assessed as having capacity to consent. The concern was that the lack of a community treatment order would increase carers&amp;rsquo; responsibilities in an already challenging life situation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The aim of this study is to explore carers&amp;rsquo; experiences of how their responsibility and daily life were affected after the patient&amp;rsquo;s community treatment order was revoked based on capacity to consent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Method - We conducted individual in-depth interviews from September 2019 to March 2020 with seven carers of patients whose community treatment order was revoked following assessment of capacity to consent, based on the change in the legislation. The transcripts were analysed with inspiration from reflexive thematic analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Results - The participants had little knowledge about the amended legislation, and three out of seven did not know about the change at the time of the interview. Their responsibility and daily life were as before, but they felt that the patient was more content, without relating this to the change in the law. They had found that coercion was necessary in certain situations, which made them worry whether the new legislation would make it more difficult to use coercion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion - The participating carers had little or no knowledge of the change in the law. They were involved in the patient&amp;rsquo;s everyday life as before. The concerns prior to the change about a worse situation for carers had not affected them. On the contrary, they found that their family member was more satisfied with life and the care and treatment provided. This may suggest that the intention of the legislation to reduce coercion and increase autonomy was fulfilled for these patients, without resulting in any significant change in carers&amp;rsquo; lives and responsibilities.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal article</style></work-type></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%">Jorun Rugkåsa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olav Nyttingnes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tone Breines Simonsen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jūratė Šaltytė Benth</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bjørn Lau</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Henriette Riley</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Maria Løvsletteng</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%">Georg Høyer</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The use of outpatient commitment in Norway: Who are the patients and what does it involve?</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coercion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Community psychiatry</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Community Treatment Order</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Outpatient commitment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/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;div&gt;Purpose&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Despite one of the longest histories of using Outpatient Commitment (OC), little is known about the use in the Norwegian context. Reporting from the Norwegian Outpatient Commitment Study, this article aims to: establish the profile of the OC population in Norway; ascertain the legal justification for the use of OC and what OC involves for patients; investigate possible associations between selected patient and service characteristics and duration of OC, and; explore potential differences based on gender or rurality.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Methods&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;A retrospective multi-site study, extracting data from the medical records of all patients on OC in six large regional hospitals in 2008&amp;ndash;12, with detailed investigation over 36 months of the subsample of patients on first ever OC-order in 2008&amp;ndash;09. We use descriptive statistics to establish the profile of the OC population and the legal justification for and the content of OC, and logistic regression to examine factors associated with duration of OC over 36 months.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Results&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;1414 patients were on OC over the 5 years, and 274 had their first OC in 2008&amp;ndash;09. The sample included more men than woman, and three-quarters were diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had long service histories, including involuntary admissions. The legal justification for all OC-orders was the need for treatment, and 18% were additionally justified by dangerousness. The option to initiate OC directly from the community was not used in any of the 274 first ever OC-orders. While 98% of patients were prescribed psychotropic medication, under half had an Involuntary Treatment Order, which under the Norwegian OC regime is required in addition to the OC-order to oblige patients to accept treatment (usually medication). 60% of patients had &amp;ge;2 clinical contacts monthly. There were some gender differences in descriptive analyses with men generally being worse off, but no clear pattern in terms of rurality. Patients in the sample had been on OC between one week and 20 years. The median duration of OC over 36 months was 365 days. Three factors contributed to longer duration: the use of the dangerousness criterion; a diagnosis of schizophrenia disorder, and; considerable problems with substance abuse.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Conclusion&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;The characteristics of the OC population in Norway are very similar to that reported in other jurisdictions. Medication seems to be the central focus of OC, yet additional Involuntary Treatment Orders are imposed for less than half of patients. While all OC-orders were justified by the need to ensure treatment, risk seems to be a concern for a subgroup of patients who are kept on for longer. How the 2017 amendment to the mental health act, which precludes compulsion for competent patients unless danger is present, will affect OC use, remains to be seen. Further studies should specifically focus on variation in the use of OC, including at the level of individual clinicians.&lt;/div&gt;</style></abstract><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TUD</style></label></record></records></xml>