Summary
Nev Jones, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Social Work and affiliate faculty in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Highlights
id990678822
RCTs are the gold standard for determining whether an intervention causes better outcomes, because random assignment controls for all other factors that might explain differences between groups.
Ensayos clínicos randomizados
id990679276
The most recent (‘Gold Standard’) Cochrane meta-analysis (Kisely & Campbell, 2017), pooling all three RCTs, found no significant effect of court-ordered treatment on any of the meta-analyzable clinical outcomes studied with the exception of low quality evidence for reduced victimization. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one hospital readmission was calculated as 142 — meaning 142 individuals would need to be placed under court orders to prevent a single hospitalization. While AOT is typically justified as a means of addressing “violence” or “social harm” in the US, recent meta-analysis of all available research on the effects of involuntary outpatient treatment on aggression or criminal offending found no significant benefits in either primary or sub-group analyses (Kisely et al., 2025).
La evidencia muestra que los tratamientos forzados judicialmente en personas problemáticas con el propósito de evitar daños a terceros no tienen efectos significativos.