Service Users’ Knowledge and Views on Outpatients’ Compulsory Community Treatment Orders: A Cross-Sectional Matched Comparison Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Community treatment orders (CTOs) have been used in the treatment of some individuals with serious mental illness who fail to adhere to their psychiatric treatment, leading to frequent hospitalization. This article examines perceptions and knowledge of CTOs amongst outpatient service users in Toronto, Canada. Method: Service users under a CTO were matched to a comparison control group of voluntary outpatients ( n = 69 in each group). Participants were interviewed using a series of questionnaires aimed at assessing instead of evaluating their knowledge and perceptions of CTOs, as well as understanding their views about the utility and impact of CTOs in the treatment of individuals with mental health issues. Results: Participants in the CTO group knew significantly more about CTO processes, restrictions, and procedural protections than the control group. Both groups thought that a CTO could improve certain individuals’ mental health. The control group felt more strongly that a CTO could improve a service user’s physical health by providing better access to care and closer monitoring ( P = 0.019) while a significant proportion of the CTO group thought that being on a CTO was better than being in the hospital ( P = 0.001) and that service users should be able to contest their CTO ( P = 0.001). In addition, CTO group participants were significantly more optimistic about the potential positive impact of CTOs on other service users’ quality of life ( P = 0.008) and mental health ( P = 0.023) compared to themselves. Conclusions: In general, both groups viewed CTOs as potentially capable of positively affecting treatment and lives of some individuals with mental illness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".