Skip to main content

Table 3 Multivariate associations between CTO experience and continuity of care variables, controlling for age, gender, ethnicity and symptom severity

From: Associations between compulsory community treatment and continuity of care in a three year follow-up of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET) cohort

Measure Randomised to CTO Subject to CTO Number of days on CTO Proportion of outpatient days on CTO
  Beta/OR/IRR/RR and 95% CI p-value Beta/OR/IRR/RR and 95% CI p-value Beta/OR/IRR/RR and 95% CI p-value Beta/OR/IRR/RR and 95% CI p-value
Average gap between face-to-face contactsa 1.402 (−4.981, 2.176) 0.441 −5.090 (−8.71, −1.47) 0.006 −0.006 (−0.011, −0.001) 0.020 −6.954 (−11.839, −2.069) 0.022
Number of 60 day gaps without contactb 0.919 (0.660, 1.280) 0.617 0.615 (0.440, 0.859) 0.004 0.999 (0.999, 1.000) 0.003 0.423 (0.257, 0.696) 0.001
Number of different mental health professions seen, per patient b 1.002 (0.781, 1.281) 0.988 1.075 (0.836, 1.383) 0.574 1.000 (1, 1) 0.596 1.088 (0.773, 1.531) 0.630
Number of care coordinators, per patient b 1.069 (0.813, 1.404) 0.634 1.113 (0.840, 1.474) 0.456 1.000 (1, 1) 0.992 1.076 (0.738, 1.570) 0.702
Number of psychiatrists, per patient b 1.007 (0.780, 1.301) 0.956 1.203 (0.923, 1.567) 0.171 1.000 (1, 1) 0.844 1.203 (0.842, 1.720) 0.310
Discharged from index admission to support accommodation, yes c 0.930 (0.533, 1.621) 0.797 1.361 (0.759, 2.439) 0.301 1.000 (1.000, 1.001) 0.920 1.740 (0.831, 3.644) 0.142
Any referral documented, yes c 1.063 (0.661, 1.707) 0.802 1.242 (0.764, 2.019) 0.383 1.000 (0.999, 1.001) 0.910 1.123 (0.580, 2.174) 0.730
Proportion of documents copied to user (0%)d
1–50% 1.809 (1.017, 3.218) 0.044 1.215 (0.690, 2.140) 0.500 1.000 (0.999, 1.001) 0.971 1.036 (0.359, 2.988) 0.948
51–100% 2.768 (1.490, 5.140) <0.001 1.352 (0.732, 2.496) 0.355 1.000 (0.999, 1.001) 0.592 1.232 (0.412, 3.688) 0.709
  1. Items in bold are significant at the level shown in the table
  2. aOutcome analysed using linear regression
  3. bOutcome analysed using negative binomial regression
  4. cOutcome analysed using logistic regression
  5. dOutcome analysed using log multinomial regression