BackgroundMultiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT.AimThis integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT.MethodsWe performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar.ResultsWe found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication.ConclusionStakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients’ freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.

Background: Compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH) will be introduced in the new Dutch mental health legislation. The aim of this study is to identify the opinions of mental health workers in the Netherlands on compulsory community treatment (CCT), and particularly on compulsory treatment in the patients' home. Methods: This is a mixed methods study, comprising a semi-structured interview and a survey. Forty mental health workers took part in the semi-structured interview about CCT and 20 of them, working in outpatient services, also completed a questionnaire about CTH. Descriptive analyses were performed of indicated (dis) advantages and problems of CCT and of mean scores on the CTH questionnaire. Results: Overall, the mental health workers seemed to have positive opinions on CCT. With respect to CTH, all mean scores were in the middle of the range, possibly indicating that clinicians were uncertain regarding safety issues and potential practical problems accompanying the use of CTH. Conclusions: The majority of the participating mental health workers in this study had a positive attitude towards CCT, but they seemed relative uncertain about potential possibilities and problems of working with CTH.

On January 1, 2020, the Compulsory Mental Health Care Act took effect in the Netherlands. It contains provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment at home (CTH). In this study, we collected the opinions of patients and their significant others on CTH and on their preferences regarding compulsory care in their homes. Patients and their significant others were involved in the experience-based co-design of a purpose-built online questionnaire. This questionnaire was completed by 624 patients and 531 significant others. Sixty-one percent of the patients and 62% of the significant others did not want compulsory treatment to take place at home but in hospital or elsewhere. Patients’ and significant others’ opinion showed few differences, except with regard to the involvement of the significant others in CTH. As the respective views of patients and significant others were mixed, we recommend that crisis plans and compulsory treatment plans should be individually tailored to the needs and wishes of patients and their significant others regarding CTH.

No abstract

The Netherlands has an unique system of perinatal and postpartum healthcare. Pregnancy care is delivered predominantly by primary care midwives and childbirth services predominantly involve hospital care. The first week postpartum, all women receive daily care from maternity nurses. In addition, hospitals and out-patient clinics offer perinatal mental healthcare. More specifically, ‘POP care’ (psychiatry, obstetrics and paediatrics) was developed to promote multidisciplinary collaboration in this regard. Although clinical practices and government initiatives to improve pregnancy-related mental healthcare work well, they have yet to be fully described and evaluated. The current COVID-19 pandemic has an impact on health services and perinatal mental health.