[Court-ordered treatment: Analysing a complex practise through a literature review].

INTRODUCTION: In France, there are two main types of court-ordered treatment (COT) as far as mental health is concerned: obligations of treatment and injunctions of treatment. Obligations of treatment date back from 1958 whereas the law implementing injunctions of treatment is fairly recent as it was passed in 1998. Obligations and injunctions of treatment are two different types of COT that differ in terms of proceedings (obligations of treatment require no preliminary forensic psychiatric assessment; as for injunctions of treatment, they require the appointment of a coordinating medical doctor) and that are applied for different offences. However, both are psychiatric commitment procedures connecting the judicial, medical and social fields and their overall numbers have been on the rise. These common psychiatric practices have seldom been assessed and no review of the literature on the subject has ever been published. Better knowledge of such forensic practices is essential to their improvement and even to adjust the legal framework of these measures that are enjoying a boom. The purpose of this literature review is to define the prevalence of COT as well as the sociodemographic, criminal and psychiatric characteristics of those concerned by such measures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of the French medical literature on COT was carried out using Science Direct up to December 2013. The results of seven studies were included and analysed. This was completed with a review of the articles listed in social sciences and law databases (Cairn and Dalloz).

RESULTS: It has become increasingly frequent to rely on psychiatric teams to implement COT while at the same time public mental health services have to face a surge in activity with restricted financial means. Obligations of treatment are far more common (about 20,000 court orders a year) than injunctions of treatment (about 4000 measures are currently being enforced). However the latter have showed an increase of 506% over the 2000 decade. Both measures mainly concern men (83-99%) who are rather low on the social scale. In about half of these men, no mental disorder was found, however the prevalence of personality disorders ranged from 22 to 65% while that of psychotic disorders was low. Injunctions of treatment concerned sex offenders (90% of cases) whereas obligations of treatment concern non-sexual abusers (40-70%) rather than sex offenders (20-30%).

DISCUSSION: Psychiatric research on COT is still thin on the ground and its methodology does not allow rigorous evaluation though the use of such measures is growing. When confronted with people who have not sought any care or treatment, healthcare professionals are at a loss. In France, training in forensic psychiatry is inadequate and specialised healthcare (particularly for sex offenders) need improving to reach the level of those found in many other European countries. The purpose of psychiatric treatment differs from that of lawmakers whose aim is to prevent recidivism. However, better treatment consistency requires setting up partnerships between justice, health and social services. To improve connections, there are various avenues of work such as, for instance, the creation of coordinating medical doctors for injunctions of treatment in France or European experiments using a multidisciplinary approach to prevent recidivism in sex offenders. The framework of such a partnership remains to be created as it is part and parcel of COT but has not been provided for in the law. Healthcare jurisdictions as defined in the 2009 French National Health Law might provide an appropriate framework for mental health and law professionals to collaborate.