Long term outcomes and causal modelling of compulsory inpatient and outpatient mental health care using Norwegian registry data: Protocol for a controversies in psychiatry research project.

OBJECTIVES: Compulsory mental health care includes compulsory hospitalisation and outpatient commitment with medication treatment without consent. Uncertain evidence of the effects of compulsory care contributes to large geographical variations and a controversy on its use. Some argue that compulsion can rarely be justified and should be reduced to an absolute minimum, while others claim compulsion can more frequently be justified. The limited evidence base has contributed to variations in care that raise issues about the quality/appropriateness of care as well as ethical concerns. To address the question whether compulsory mental health care results in superior, worse or equivalent outcomes for patients, this project will utilise registry-based longitudinal data to examine the effect of compulsory inpatient and outpatient care on multiple outcomes, including suicide and overall mortality; emergency care/injuries; crime and victimisation; and participation in the labour force and welfare dependency. METHODS: By using the natural variation in health providers' preference for compulsory care as a source of quasi-randomisation we will estimate causal effects of compulsory care on short- and long-term trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: This project will provide valuable insights for service providers and policy makers in facilitating high quality clinical care pathways for a high risk population group.

The relationship between area levels of involuntary psychiatric care and patient outcomes: a longitudinal national register study from Norway.

BACKGROUND: Mental health legislation permits involuntary care of patients with severe mental disorders who meet set legal criteria. The Norwegian Mental Health Act assumes this will improve health and reduce risk of deterioration and death. Professionals have warned against potentially adverse effects of recent initiatives to heighten involuntary care thresholds, but no studies have investigated whether high thresholds have adverse effects. AIM: To test the hypothesis that areas with lower levels of involuntary care show higher levels of morbidity and mortality in their severe mental disorder populations over time compared to areas with higher levels. Data availability precluded analyses of the effect on health and safety of others. METHODS: Using national data, we calculated standardized (by age, sex, and urbanicity) involuntary care ratios across Community Mental Health Center areas in Norway. For patients diagnosed with severe mental disorders (ICD10 F20-31), we tested whether lower area ratios in 2015 was associated with 1) case fatality over four years, 2) an increase in inpatient days, and 3) time to first episode of involuntary care over the following two years. We also assessed 4) whether area ratios in 2015 predicted an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with F20-31 in the subsequent two years and whether 5) standardized involuntary care area ratios in 2014-2017 predicted an increase in the standardized suicide ratios in 2014-2018. Analyses were prespecified (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04655287). RESULTS: We found no adverse effects on patients' health in areas with lower standardized involuntary care ratios. The standardization variables age, sex, and urbanicity explained 70.5% of the variance in raw rates of involuntary care. CONCLUSIONS: Lower standardized involuntary care ratios are not associated with adverse effects for patients with severe mental disorders in Norway. This finding merits further research of the way involuntary care works.

Geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation - ethical challenges.

BACKGROUND: Compulsory hospitalisation in mental health care restricts patients' liberty and is experienced as harmful by many. Such hospitalisations continue to be used due to their assumed benefit, despite limited scientific evidence. Observed geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation raises concern that rates are higher and lower than necessary in some areas. METHODS/DISCUSSION: We present a specific normative ethical analysis of how geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation challenges four core principles of health care ethics. We then consider the theoretical possibility of a "right", or appropriate, level of compulsory hospitalisation, as a general norm for assessing the moral divergence, i.e., too little, or too much. Finally, we discuss implications of our analysis and how they can inform the future direction of mental health services.

Service Characteristics and Geographical Variation in Compulsory Hospitalisation: An Exploratory Random Effects Within-Between Analysis of Norwegian Municipalities, 2015-2018.

Background: Compulsory hospitalisation in mental healthcare is contested. For ethical and legal reasons, it should only be used as a last resort. Geographical variation could indicate that some areas employ compulsory hospitalisation more frequently than is strictly necessary. Explaining variation in compulsory hospitalisation might contribute to reducing overuse, but research on associations with service characteristics remains patchy. Objectives: We aimed to investigate the associations between the levels of compulsory hospitalisation and the characteristics of primary mental health services in Norway between 2015 and 2018 and the amount of variance explained by groups of explanatory variables. Methods: We applied random-effects within-between Poisson regression of 461 municipalities/city districts, nested within 72 community mental health centre catchment areas (N = 1,828 municipality-years). Results: More general practitioners, mental health nurses, and the total labour-years in municipal mental health and addiction services per population are associated with lower levels of compulsory hospitalisations within the same areas, as measured by both persons (inpatients) and events (hospitalisations). Areas that, on average, have more general practitioners and public housing per population have lower levels of compulsory hospitalisation, while higher levels of compulsory hospitalisation are seen in areas with a longer history of supported employment and the systematic gathering of service users' experiences. In combination, all the variables, including the control variables, could account for 39-40% of the variation, with 5-6% related to municipal health services. Conclusion: Strengthening primary mental healthcare by increasing the number of general practitioners and mental health workers can reduce the use of compulsory hospitalisation and improve the quality of health services.

Measuring the level of compulsory hospitalisation in mental health care: The performance of different measures across areas and over time.

OBJECTIVE: A variety of measures are used for reporting levels of compulsory psychiatric hospitalisation. This complicates comparisons between studies and makes it hard to establish the extent of geographic variation. We aimed to investigate how measures based on events, individuals and duration portray geographical variation differently and perform over time, how they correlate and how well they predict future ranked levels of compulsory hospitalisation. METHODS: Small-area analysis, correlation analysis and linear regressions of data from a Norwegian health registry containing whole population data from 2014 to 2018. RESULTS: The average compulsory hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitant was 5.6 times higher in the highest area, compared to the lowest, while the difference for the compulsory inpatient rate was 3.2. Population rates based on inpatients correlate strongly with rates of compulsory hospitalisations (r = 0.88) and duration (r = 0.78). 68%-81% of ranked compulsory hospitalisation rates could be explained by each area's rank the previous year. CONCLUSION: There are stable differences in service delivery between catchment areas in Norway. In future research, multiple measures of the level of compulsory hospitalisation should ideally be included when investigating geographical variation. It is important that researchers describe accurately the measure upon which their results are based.

What Makes Some Diseases More Typical than Others? A Survey on the Impact of Disease Characteristics and Professional Background on Disease Typicality.

Health professionals tend to perceive some diseases as more typical than others. If disease typicalities have implications for health professionals or health policy makers' handling of different diseases, then it is of great social, epistemic, and ethical interest. Accordingly, it is important to find out what makes health professionals rank diseases as more or less typical. This study investigates the impact of various factors on how typical various diseases are perceived to be by health professionals. In particular, we study the influence of broad disease categories, such as somatic versus psychological/behavioral conditions, and a wide range of more specific disease characteristics, as well as the health professional's own background. We find that professional background strongly impacted disease typicality. All professionals (MD, RN, physiotherapists and psychologists) considered somatic conditions to be more typical than psychological/behavioral. As expected, psychologists also found psychological/behavioral conditions to be more typical than did other groups. Professions of respondents could be well predicted from their individual typicality judgments, with the exception of physiotherapists and nurses who had very similar judgment profiles. We also demonstrate how various disease characteristics impact typicality for the different professionals. Typicality showed moderate to strong positive correlations with condition severity and mortality, and only non-severe conditions were rated as atypical. Hence, studying how different disease characteristics and occupational background influences health professionals' perception of disease typicality is the first and important step toward a more general study of how typicality influences disease handling.