Measuring the impact of revised mental health legislation on human rights in Queensland, Australia

Gill, Neeraj; Amos, Andrew; Muhsen, Hassan; Hatton, Joshua; Ekanayake, Charuka; Kisely, Steve

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101634

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Well-intentioned legal protection for human rights can have unintended adverse consequences. In Queensland, an evaluation of revised MH legislation found that compulsory treatment orders actually increased after revised legislation despite efforts towards less restrictive treatment [ 83 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic added complexity to the problem of human rights protections for those with and even without mental illnesses particularly due to the strict enforcement of quarantine measures and rules [ 80 ].…”

Section: Contemporary Priorities For Global Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Mental Health: Where We Are and Where We Are Going

Moitra

Owens

Hailemariam

et al. 2023

Curr Psychiatry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review To summarize recent findings in global mental health along several domains including socioeconomic determinants, inequities, funding, and inclusion in global mental health research and practice. Recent Findings Mental illness continues to disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and treatment coverage continues to be low globally. Advances in integrating mental health care and adopting task-shifting are accompanied by implementation challenges. The mental health impact of recent global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geo-political events, and environmental change is likely to persist and require coordinated care approaches for those in need of psychosocial support. Inequities also exist in funding for global mental health and there has been gradual progress in terms of building local capacity for mental health care programs and research. Lastly, there is an increasing effort to include people with lived experiences of mental health in research and policy shaping efforts. Summary The field of global mental health will likely continue to be informed by evidence and perspectives originating increasingly from low- and middle-income countries along with ongoing global events and centering of relevant stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Contemporary Priorities For Global Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Mental Health: Where We Are and Where We Are Going

Moitra

Owens

Hailemariam

et al. 2023

Curr Psychiatry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They robustly present the conditions for this, as well as the mitigating circumstances. Countries seeking exceptions to these guidelines perpetuate human rights violations, making it morally and ethically unacceptable (Gill et al, 2020). My country has unlawfully detained refugees for many years and my own state refused to provide facility access to UN human rights delegations (Amnesty International, 2013).…”

Section: The Uncomfortable Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two systems; How beliefs lead to harmful outdoor practice

Pringle

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fields of adventure therapy (AT) and complex trauma (CT) share similar belief systems however, internal divisions in each field seem insurmountable. Through a critical realist analysis, I present the clash between Neo-Liberal and humanist approaches and how they lead to a misunderstanding of the harmful effects of coercive treatment. Exploring ecological dynamics, sense of self, and the fundamental attribution error I discuss these complexities. A historical perspective reveals that AT already possesses solutions to bridge the gap between coercive practices and humanist CT informed AT. These solutions are outlined and a call to action encourages the international AT community to take a leadership role in mental health globally.

show abstract

“…This is despite nationwide reform of mental health legislation intended to improve the human rights of people with mental illness following the country’s adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( Callaghan and Ryan, 2012 ). However, legislative changes have had minimal impact on the high rates of CTO use in Australia ( Gill et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Kisely,

Zirnsak,

Corderoy

et al. 2024

Aust N Z J Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: Community treatment orders have been introduced in many jurisdictions with increasing use over time. We conducted a rapid umbrella review to synthesise the quantitative and qualitative evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of their potential harms and benefits. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO for relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Where available, participants on community treatment orders were compared with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023398767) and the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/zeq35 ). Results: In all, 17 publications from 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative synthesis of data from different systematic reviews was not possible. There were mixed findings on the effects of community treatment orders on health service use, and clinical, psychosocial or forensic outcomes. Whereas uncontrolled evidence suggested benefits, results were more equivocal from controlled studies and randomised controlled trials showed no effect. Any changes in health service use took several years to become apparent. There was evidence that better targeting of community treatment order use led to improved outcomes. Although there were other benefits, such as in mortality, findings were mostly rated as suggestive using predetermined and standardised criteria. Qualitative findings suggested that family members and clinicians were generally positive about the effect of community treatment orders but those subjected to them were more ambivalent. Any possible harms were under-researched, particularly in quantitative designs. Conclusions: The evidence for the benefits of community treatment orders remains inconclusive. At the very least, use should be better targeted to people most likely to benefit. More quantitative research on harms is indicated.

show abstract

Measuring the impact of revised mental health legislation on human rights in Queensland, Australia

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Global Mental Health: Where We Are and Where We Are Going

Global Mental Health: Where We Are and Where We Are Going

A tale of two systems; How beliefs lead to harmful outdoor practice

The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About