Search

Abstract Background Rather than being perceived as merely ‘part of the problem’, the perspectives and experiences of young people play a pivotal role in devising effective solutions for mental health challenges. Two distinct methodologies that aid in this endeavour are ‘patient and public involvement’ (PPI) and ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI). However, there is a tendency to conflate PPI and RRI practices, leading to ambiguity in their application. Moreover, the extent and nature of young people’s involvement in mental health-related projects (namely: research, intervention, product development) employing these methodologies, and the subsequent implications thereof, remain unclear. Consequently, the proposed scoping review aims to identify and analyse literature pertaining to PPI and RRI approaches in mental health projects that engage young people in collaboration. Methods The selected databases will be MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Scopus, Web of Science, IBBS, CINAHL (EBSCO) and ASSIA. Comprehensive searches will span from the inception of each database. A pilot test will be conducted to assess the screening criteria and data extraction form, with two authors independently reviewing titles and abstracts. Full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will undergo narrative syntheses, with results presented in tabular format. Feedback on the findings from a youth perspective will be sought from young people within our broader research network, namely Sprouting Minds. The review will adhere to the guidelines outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and follow the PRISMA-ScR procedures. Inclusion criteria will comprise English-language, primary research peer-reviewed articles focused on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) or Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), examining mental health-related research processes, interventions, and products developed in collaboration with young people. Studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches will be considered, while non-journal publications will be excluded. Discussion The intended scoping review aims to map the literature concerning mental health-related projects that engage with young people through PPI or RRI approaches. The outcomes hold promise for enriching the participatory research domain, particularly in studies centred on young people and their mental well-being. Furthermore, by delineating potential overlaps and distinctions between PPI and RRI, the findings stand to aid mental health researchers and practitioners in making informed decisions about the most suitable approach for their projects when partnering with young individuals. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework (registration: DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N4EDB ).

Abstract Background Suicide prevention is a national priority for the UK government. Autistic people are at greater risk of experiencing self-harm and suicidal thoughts and behaviours than the general population. Safety plans are widely used in suicide prevention but have not yet been designed with and for autistic people. We developed the first safety plan specifically targeting suicidality in autistic adults: the Autism Adapted Safety Plan (AASP). It consists of a prioritised list of hierarchical steps that can be used prior to or during a crisis to mitigate risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviour. This is a pilot study that aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the AASPs and the research processes, including the response rates, potential barriers and reach of AASPs, methods of recruitment, what comprises usual care, and economic evaluation methods/tools. Methods This is an external pilot randomised controlled trial of a suicide prevention tool aimed at mitigating the risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviour in autistic adults: AASPs. Participants will be assessed at baseline and followed up 1 month and 6 months later. Assessments include questions about self-harm, suicidality, service use, and their experience of the AASP/taking part in the study. Autistic adults who have a clinical autism diagnosis and self-reported history of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, or suicidal behaviours within the last 6 months will be invited to take part in the study. Informed consent will be obtained. Participants will be recruited via community and third sector services (including community settings, autism charities, and mental health charities). They may also “self-refer” into the study through social media recruitment and word of mouth. Ninety participants will be randomised to either develop an AASP or receive their usual care in a 1:1 ratio. Discussion The present study will provide an evaluation of the suitability of the processes that would be undertaken in a larger definitive study, including recruitment, randomisation, methods, questionnaires, outcome measures, treatment, and follow-up assessments. Trial registration ISRCTN70594445, Protocol v4: 8/2/22.

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in mental health research, including self-harm and suicide research, is desirable (as with other health topics) but may involve specific challenges given the perceived sensitivity of the topic. This is particularly so when involving young people. We explore the experiences and perceptions of Early Career Researchers (ECRs) undertaking youth and adult involvement work in mental health, self-harm and/or suicide research. We consider current practice, barriers and facilitators. Methods An online survey of a convenience sample of ECRs (N = 41) undertaking research on mental health, self-harm and/or suicide. Questions examined the perceived value of involvement work, involvement methods used, funding availability and the extent to which researchers felt knowledgeable, supported and confident in their involvement activities. Descriptive statistics are presented with appropriate tests. Open-ended questions, related to barriers and facilitators for involvement work, were subjected to an inductive thematic analysis. Results Youth and adult involvement work were valued to a similar extent, though institutions were reported to value youth involvement to a lesser extent. Researchers’ knowledge, confidence and support ratings were comparable for youth and adult involvement. The involvement methods used with young people and adults were also similar, with analysing data being the least popular method used and developing resources (e.g. information sheets) being the most popular method used. Less than a third of participants reported that funding was available for their research involvement activities. Barriers to involvement in research on mental health, self-harm and suicide were: ethical issues and perceived risk; real costs (in terms of money/time) versus perceived value; and the challenge of recruiting people. Facilitators to involvement work were: expert examples, expertise and guidelines; and investment in involvement work. Conclusions ECRs in the fields of mental health, self-harm and suicide are engaged in youth and adult involvement work. They value (find worthwhile) youth and adult involvement work to a similarly high extent, but feel their institutions may regard youth involvement slightly less highly than adult involvement. ECRs rate themselves as feeling similarly knowledgeable, confident and supported when doing involvement activities with both age groups. Nonetheless, significant barriers to involvement work on these topics are reported and are generally issues that need to be tackled at an institutional level (ethical/governance issues and lack of funding).