How Mental Health Clinicians View Community Treatment Orders: A National New Zealand Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine New Zealand mental health clinicians' views about community treatment orders, indications for their use, their benefits, problems and impact on patients and therapeutic relationships. METHOD: A national survey of New Zealand psychiatrists and a regional survey of non-psychiatric community mental health professionals for comparison. RESULTS: The great majority of NZ psychiatrists prefer to work with community treatment orders as an option. They consider they are used properly in most cases, can enhance patients' priority for care, provide a structure for treatment, support continuing contact and produce a period of stability for patients during which other therapeutic changes can occur. They consider these orders can harm therapeutic relationships, especially in the short term, but when used appropriately their overall benefits outweigh their coercive impact. The other mental health professionals surveyed have similar views. A minority of clinicians do not support their use. CONCLUSIONS: The precise impact of community treatment orders on patients' quality of life remains an open question. Until that matter is more clearly resolved, New Zealand law should continue to authorise compulsory outpatient care, provided it is carefully targeted and adequate community services are available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".