Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDawson, John
dc.contributor.authorRomans, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorGibbs, Anita
dc.contributor.authorRatter, Nikki
dc.date.available2016-06-20T00:52:35Z
dc.date.copyright2003
dc.identifier.citationDawson, J., Romans, S., Gibbs, A., & Ratter, N. (2003). Ambivalence about community treatment orders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26(3), 243–255. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(03)00035-9en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/6589
dc.description.abstractThe trend to endorse the use of outpatient commitment, or community treatment orders (CommTOs) (the terms are equivalent), seems to be gathering momentum. There is now some empirical evidence and a significant body of clinical opinion to suggest that CommTOs can affect clinical outcomes when properly established, resourced, and sustained. Their range has been extending in North America to cover New York and Ontario, for instance. Their introduction is actively under consideration in England and Wales (Department of Health, 2000). They are used extensively in Australia and New Zealand (Dawson, 1991; Dawson & Romans, 2001; Power, 1999; Vaughan, McConaghy, Wolf, Myhr, & Black, 2000). It seems CommTOs are now politically acceptable in many places.The general question we wish to pose about CommTOs is why, despite this gathering momentum, there remains such widespread ambivalence about their use. In addition, what are the reasons for this ambivalence? Does it flow only from the inadequate and conflicting nature of the evidence concerning their efficacy, or is the problem more fundamental and less easily resolved?en_NZ
dc.language.isoenen_NZ
dc.publisherElsevieren_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Law and Psychiatryen_NZ
dc.relation.urihttp://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-law-and-psychiatry/en_NZ
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectcommunity treatment ordersen_NZ
dc.subjectout patient commitmenten_NZ
dc.subjectevidenceen_NZ
dc.subjectdesignen_NZ
dc.subjectambivalenceen_NZ
dc.subjectcompulsionen_NZ
dc.titleAmbivalence about community treatment ordersen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.date.updated2016-06-19T01:16:51Z
otago.schoolSociology, Gender & Social Worken_NZ
otago.relation.issue3en_NZ
otago.relation.volume26en_NZ
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0160-2527(03)00035-9en_NZ
otago.bitstream.endpage255en_NZ
otago.bitstream.startpage243en_NZ
otago.openaccessAbstract Onlyen_NZ
dc.rights.statementCopyright © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.en_NZ
dc.description.refereedPeer Revieweden_NZ
 Find in your library

Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item is not available in full-text via OUR Archive.

If you are the author of this item, please contact us if you wish to discuss making the full text publicly available.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International