↓ Skip to main content

European laws on compulsory commitment to care of persons suffering from substance use disorders or misuse problems– a comparative review from a human and civil rights perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
European laws on compulsory commitment to care of persons suffering from substance use disorders or misuse problems– a comparative review from a human and civil rights perspective
Published in
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13011-015-0029-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magnus Israelsson, Kerstin Nordlöf, Arne Gerdner

Abstract

Laws on compulsory commitment to care (CCC) in mental health, social and criminal legislation for adult persons with alcohol and/or drug dependence or misuse problems are constructed to address different scenarios related to substance use disorders. This study examines how such CCC laws in European states vary in terms of legal rights, formal orders of decision and criteria for involuntary admission, and assesses whether three legal frameworks (criminal, mental and social law) equally well ensure human and civil rights. Thirty-nine laws, from 38 countries, were analysed. Respondents replied in web-based questionnaires concerning a) legal rights afforded the persons with substance use problems during commitment proceedings, b) sources of formal application, c) instances for decision on admission, and d) whether or not 36 different criteria could function as grounds for decisions on CCC according to the law in question. Analysis of a-c were conducted in bivariate cross-tabulations. The 36 criteria for admission were sorted in criteria groups based on principal component analysis (PCA). To investigate whether legal rights, decision-making authorities or legal criteria may discriminate between types of law on CCC, discriminant analyses (DA) were conducted. There are few differences between the three types of law on CCC concerning legal rights afforded the individual. However, proper safeguards of the rights against unlawful detention seem still to be lacking in some CCC laws, regardless type of law. Courts are the decision-making body in 80 % of the laws, but this varies clearly between law types. Criteria for CCC also differ between types of law, i.e. concerning who should be treated: dependent offenders, persons with substance use problems with acting out or aggressive behaviors, or other vulnerable persons with alcohol or drug problems. The study raises questions concerning whether various European CCC laws in relation to substance use disorder or misuse problems comply with international ratified conventions concerning human and civil rights. This, however, applies to all three types of law, i.e. social, mental health and criminal legislation. The main differences between law types concern legal criteria, reflecting different national priorities on implicit ambitions of CCC - for correction, for prevention, or for support to those in greatest need of care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 23%
Social Sciences 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2015.
All research outputs
#4,475,807
of 6,375,336 outputs
Outputs from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#250
of 276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,618
of 195,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,375,336 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.