TY - JOUR
T1 - Stakeholder experiences with compulsory treatment at home
T2 - A focus-group study
AU - de Waardt, D. A.
AU - Mulder, C. L.
AU - Widdershoven, G. A.M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2025 The Authors
PY - 2025/5
Y1 - 2025/5
N2 - Background: Since 2020, Dutch mental health legislation has provided scope for compulsory treatment at home (CTH). Unlike compulsory community treatment (CCT), CTH allows for the use of compulsion in a patient's home, and thus not only in hospital. Aim: To examine several stakeholders' experiences and views regarding CTH and its implementation. Methods: Four focus-groups were performed: one with patients, one with significant others, one with psychiatrists, and one with a mixed group of stakeholders. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results: We identified three themes and 16 subthemes. The first theme concerned the potential benefits of CTH, one of which was avoiding admission to hospital. The second theme focused on preconditions for the delivery of CTH, mainly on communication between mental health workers, patients, and significant others; and the importance of a dialogue well in advance of any compulsory care. With regard to the third theme, considerations regarding the delivery of CTH, all stakeholder groups believed that CTH would be most suitable for patients who had a longer history with their treatment team: between them, they would be able to draw up a plan for compulsory care. Conclusion: Stakeholders felt that CTH can work for patients with a longer treatment history whose home situation allows for treatment at home. They regard an advance dialogue and jointly drawing up a crisis plan as important preconditions. Overall, CTH can be regarded as an extra option for enabling an individually tailored approach.
AB - Background: Since 2020, Dutch mental health legislation has provided scope for compulsory treatment at home (CTH). Unlike compulsory community treatment (CCT), CTH allows for the use of compulsion in a patient's home, and thus not only in hospital. Aim: To examine several stakeholders' experiences and views regarding CTH and its implementation. Methods: Four focus-groups were performed: one with patients, one with significant others, one with psychiatrists, and one with a mixed group of stakeholders. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results: We identified three themes and 16 subthemes. The first theme concerned the potential benefits of CTH, one of which was avoiding admission to hospital. The second theme focused on preconditions for the delivery of CTH, mainly on communication between mental health workers, patients, and significant others; and the importance of a dialogue well in advance of any compulsory care. With regard to the third theme, considerations regarding the delivery of CTH, all stakeholder groups believed that CTH would be most suitable for patients who had a longer history with their treatment team: between them, they would be able to draw up a plan for compulsory care. Conclusion: Stakeholders felt that CTH can work for patients with a longer treatment history whose home situation allows for treatment at home. They regard an advance dialogue and jointly drawing up a crisis plan as important preconditions. Overall, CTH can be regarded as an extra option for enabling an individually tailored approach.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85217910808&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102072
DO - 10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102072
M3 - Article
C2 - 39983388
AN - SCOPUS:85217910808
SN - 0160-2527
VL - 100
JO - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
JF - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
M1 - 102072
ER -
