Search

Background: \ud There is increasing interest in digital technologies to help improve children and young people’s mental health, and the evidence for the effectiveness for these approaches is rising. However, there is concern regarding levels of user engagement, uptake and adherence. Key guidance regarding digital health interventions stress the importance of early user input in the development, evaluation and implementation of technologies to help ensure they are engaging, feasible, acceptable and potentially effective. Co-design is a process of active involvement of stakeholders, requiring a change from the traditional approaches to intervention development. However, there is a lack of literature to inform the co-design of digital technologies to help child and adolescent mental health.\ud \ud Methods: \ud We reviewed the literature and practice in the co-design of digital mental health technologies with children and young people. We searched Medline, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases, guidelines, reviews and reference lists, contacted key authors for relevant studies, and extracted key themes on aspects of co-design relevant to practice. We supplemented this with case studies and methods reported by researchers working in the field.\ud \ud Results: \ud We identified 25 original articles and 30 digital mental health technologies that were designed/developed with children and young people. The themes identified were as follows: principles of co-design (including potential stakeholders and stages of involvement), methods of involving and engaging the range of users, co-designing the prototype and the challenges of co-design.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Co-design involves all relevant stakeholders throughout the life and research cycle of the programme. This review helps to inform practitioners and researchers interested in the development of digital health technologies for children and young people. Future work in this field will need to consider the changing face of technology, methods of engaging with the diversity in the user group, and the evaluation of the co-design process and its impact on the technology.

Importance: Early-onset major depressive disorder (MDD) is common in individuals at high familial risk of depression and is associated with poor long-term mental health, social, and educational outcomes.\ud \ud Objectives: To examine the developmental pathways that lead to first-episode adolescent-onset MDD (incident cases) in those at high familial risk and to postulate a theoretically informed model that enables simultaneous testing of different pathways to incident adolescent-onset MDD composed of contributions from familial/genetic and social risk factors, as well as effects via specific clinical antecedents.\ud \ud Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigation was a 4-year longitudinal study (April 2007 to March 2011) among offspring of depressed parents in the general community. Analyses were conducted between September 1, 2015, and May 27, 2016. Participants were 337 families in whom the index parent (315 mothers and 22 fathers) had experienced at least 2 episodes of MDD (recruited through primary care) and among whom there was a biologically related child in the age range of 9 to 17 years living with the index parent (197 girls and 140 boys with a mean [SD] age of 12.4 [2.0] years) at baseline. Offspring with MDD before the study or at baseline (n = 27), offspring with an episode of MDD that had remitted by follow-up (n = 4), and offspring with missing baseline MDD data (n = 2) were excluded. Ninety-two percent (279 of 304) of families completed the follow-up.\ud \ud Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was new-onset offspring MDD, and the secondary outcome was the total DSM-IV MDD symptom score.\ud \ud Results: On average, children and adolescents had a mean (SD) of 1.85 (1.74) (range, 0-8.5) DSM-IV symptoms of MDD at follow-up. Twenty (6 males and 14 females) had new-onset MDD, with a mean (SD) age at onset of 14.4 (2.0) years (range, 10-18 years). Irritability (β = 0.12, P = .03) and fear and/or anxiety (β = 0.38, P

When embarking on mental health research it is often necessary to apply for approvals from one or more review bodies to ensure that the research is ethical and that the safety and well-being of participants are safeguarded. This can be complicated and time consuming, particularly to those unfamiliar with the process. In this article we describe the approvals commonly required for National Health Service-based research involving patients and endeavour to clearly explain what is involved at each stage. We then highlight some of the main considerations, including ethical aspects, which are particularly pertinent to conducting research in the field of mental health, and finish with general advice and considerations for future developments in the area.