Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 25;38(3):e101532.
doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2024-101532. eCollection 2025.

Disparity in immigrant compulsory care assignment: discrimination or response to treatment need

Steven P Segal  1 , Leena Badran  1 , Lachlan Rimes  2 , Vinay Lakra  3
Affiliations

Disparity in immigrant compulsory care assignment: discrimination or response to treatment need

Steven P Segal et al. Gen Psychiatr. .
No abstract available

Keywords: Commitment of Mentally Ill; Crisis Intervention; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Psychotic Disorders; Selection Bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of admission HoNOS clinical ratings across five ethnic groups. Average HoNOS severity rating: each horizontal line represents an increase of 0.5 in the HoNOS severity rating score, ranging from 0.0 to 4.0. The vertical height of each bar is the actual average HoNOS score. The numbers at the top of the vertical bars are the actual HoNOS scores rounded to their nearest clinical anchor (thus, the modest differences in charted bar height reflect the actual mean score vs the clinical anchor).Clinical-risk anchors: the clinical-risk anchor’s meaning of each HoNOS integer is: 0=no problem, 1=problem or indulgence within the norm; 2=clinical risk present; 3=moderately severe clinical problem; 4=an extremely problematic situation.21 ADL, activity of daily living; HoNOS, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Beaglehole B, Frampton C, Newton-Howes G, et al. Compulsory Community Treatment Orders and health outcomes for Ma-ori in New Zealand. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2024;58:1047–54. doi: 10.1177/00048674241280918. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Segal SP, Rimes L, Badran L. Crime and victimization outcomes following civil rights limits to the use of compulsory treatment. Psychiatry Res. 2023;327:115377. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115377. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moss K, Wyder M, Braddock V, et al. Compulsory community treatment and ethnicity: findings from a culturally and linguistically diverse area of Queensland. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;62:154–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bardell-Williams M, Eaton S, Downey L, et al. Rates, determinants and outcomes associated with the use of community treatment orders in young people experiencing first episode psychosis. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;62:85–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.11.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kisely S, Moss K, Boyd M, et al. Efficacy of compulsory community treatment and use in minority ethnic populations: a statewide cohort study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2020;54:76–88. doi: 10.1177/0004867419877690. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources