<?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>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tora Benedicte Svare Leinan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katie Iren Wickstrøm</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dagfinn Bjørgen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Geir Småvik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tvang uten døgnopphold - &quot;Tvang som rutine?&quot;</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">erfaringer</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%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">08/2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://kbtkompetanse.no/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Hovedrapport_Nettversjon_TUD_2021.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kompetansesenter for brukererfaring og tjenesteutvikling (KBT) </style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Mål for prosjektet Overordnet mål for prosjektet var å få mer kunnskap om hva informantene som er, eller har vært underlagt vedtak om Tvungent psykisk helsevern uten døgnopphold (TUD) mener alternativet kan være; hvordan de opplever TUD, hva de trenger hjelp til, hva de savnet av hjelp som alternativ til tvang. Prosjektet hadde også som intensjon å inkludere pårørendeperspektivet, men av ulike årsaker lot dette seg ikke gjøre, så prosjektet omhandler derfor kun informasjon fra pasienter med erfaring fra TUD, tvang uten døgnopphold. Disse vil i det videre kalles for informanter. Målet var også å ev. finne svar på hvorfor pasienter ikke frivillig tok imot hjelpen som ble tilbudt dem, slik at tvungent psykisk helsevern uten døgnopphold ble det valgte tiltak. Hensikten var i utgangspunktet å løfte frem både pasienters og pårørendes erfaringer/anbefalinger om hva som kan bidra til reduksjon i tvangsbruk. I denne rapporten har vi som sagt kun hentet erfaringer fra pasientene. Problemstilling Hvordan kan helseforetaket gi nødvendig helsehjelp til pasienter som ikke frivillig vil ta imot den hjelpen helsetjenesten tilbyr.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rapport</style></work-type><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tud</style></label></record></records></xml>