Search

Objectives This study investigated how Brazilian young people perceive their role in promoting and supporting their peer community’s mental health and well-being, and the conditions and contexts influencing their engagement.Design Co-produced qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus groups with adolescents. The sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and anonymised. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.Setting Data collection took place remotely across Brazil via audio or video calls conducted by a youth collaborator and a senior researcher.Participants 46 Brazilian adolescents aged between 15 and 18 years old, recruited primarily via social media.Results Our analysis generated four overarching themes: (1) young people’s sense of responsibility and motivation—many participants felt committed to promoting the mental health and well-being of their friends and community, while also critically emphasising responsibilities of and partnerships with adult stakeholders to make a meaningful difference; (2) strategies for promoting peer mental health—suggested strategies included peer-to-peer support, such as non-judgemental listening, and collective actions such as forming school groups; (3) intrapersonal barriers—key barriers to participation included a lack of necessary skills and self-efficacy; and (4) contextual barriers—young people reported feeling unheard, invalidated, and fearing judgement due to mental health stigma.Conclusion These findings support an ecological view of youth participation in the promotion of mental health as dependent on intrapersonal, interpersonal and contextual factors. Realising young people’s potential in advancing mental health in their communities requires fostering youth–adult partnerships, providing peer support training, and combating adultism and mental health stigma.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures have posed a major risk to young people’s wellbeing, which might be ameliorated by peer-led programmes. Using a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN77941736 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN77941736 ), we tested the short-term efficacy of an online peer-led intervention designed to equip young people with skills to support their mental health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Through schools and social media ads, we recruited one hundred young people (aged 16–18) in the UK, focusing on areas with the highest incidence of COVID cases. In December 2020, participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate 5 day Coping during COVID course (n = 49) or a wait-list (n = 51) through a survey software automated randomisation tool. Our primary outcome was self-reported mental wellbeing, and secondary outcomes included self-reported social connectedness, coping skills, sense of purpose, self-esteem, and self-compassion. We also collected qualitative reports of participants’ perceived impact of the course and intentions to use what they have learnt from the course in their life moving forward. Assessments were completed at baseline, 1 week post randomisation (primary endpoint), and 2-weeks post-randomisation. Results Young people allocated to the peer-led intervention reported significantly greater wellbeing, social connectedness, coping skills, sense of purpose, self-esteem, and self-compassion 1 week and 2 weeks post-randomisation (medium-large effect sizes). Specific benefits to mental health, sense of purpose and connectedness were also emphasised in qualitative reports. Conclusions An online, peer-led intervention targeting youth wellbeing during the context of the COVID-19 pandemic brought benefits across a range of outcomes, suggesting that structured programmes that incorporate peer-to-peer support can be a valuable approach to promote young people’s wellbeing and foster psychological resources during a health crisis.

Background Use of personal sensing to predict mental health risk has sparked interest in adolescent psychiatry, offering a potential tool for targeted early intervention.Objectives We investigated the preferences and values of UK adolescents with regard to use of digital sensing information, including social media and internet searching behaviour. We also investigated the impact of risk information on adolescents’ self-understanding.Methods Following a Design Bioethics approach, we created and disseminated a purpose-built digital game (www.tracingtomorrow.org) that immersed the player-character in a fictional scenario in which they received a risk assessment for depression Data were collected through game choices across relevant scenarios, with decision-making supported through clickable information points.Findings The game was played by 7337 UK adolescents aged 16–18 years. Most participants were willing to personally communicate mental health risk information to their parents or best friend. The acceptability of school involvement in risk predictions based on digital traces was mixed, due mainly to privacy concerns. Most participants indicated that risk information could negatively impact their academic self-understanding. Participants overwhelmingly preferred individual face-to-face over digital options for support.Conclusions The potential of digital phenotyping in supporting early intervention in mental health can only be fulfilled if data are collected, communicated and actioned in ways that are trustworthy, relevant and acceptable to young people.Clinical implications To minimise the risk of ethical harms in real-world applications of preventive psychiatric technologies, it is essential to investigate young people’s values and preferences as part of design and implementation processes.

Many research institutions and funders have recently stated their commitment to actively support and promote ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’ (EDI) in various aspects of health research including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). However, translating this commitment into specific research projects presents significant challenges that existing approaches, practical guidelines and initiatives have not adequately addressed. In this paper, we explore how the lack of clear justifications for the EDI commitment in existing guidelines inadvertently complicates the work of those involved with PPI and we stress the need for conceptual clarity for any EDI effort to yield meaningful results. Our focus centres on the first principle of the EDI discourse, ‘equality’, particularly in the form of ‘equality of opportunity’ as outlined in current guidance provided by the National Institute of Health Research in the United Kingdom. We examine challenges related to justifying and implementing a general, unspecified commitment to equality of opportunity and explain that this reflects a lack of consensus regarding the moral value of PPI in research – a profound problem that remains unaddressed. We then discuss how the presence of several opposing moral perspectives on PPI, makes determining the most appropriate way of addressing barriers to involvement complex and controversial, raising ethical implications for the work of health researchers, PPI specialists and coordinators. Finally we make suggestions on how future research can enrich the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’ in PPI and improve practice. While our primary focus is on the NIHR, a strong advocate of PPI in research, this analysis will point to normative and ethical considerations that may be relevant to other research institutions and funding organisations aiming to promote equality of opportunity in their public and patient involvement strategies.

Digital Mental Health Technologies (DMHTs) have the potential to close treatment gaps in settings where mental healthcare is scarce or even inaccessible. For this, DMHTs need to be affordable, evidence-based, justice-oriented, user-friendly, and embedded in a functioning digital infrastructure. This viewpoint discusses areas crucial for future developments of DMHTs. Drawing back on interdisciplinary scholarship, questions of health equity, consumer-, patient- and developer-oriented legislation, and requirements for successful implementation of technologies across the globe are discussed. Economic considerations and policy implications complement these aspects. We discuss the need for cultural adaptation specific to the context of use and point to several benefits as well as pitfalls of DMHTs for research and healthcare provision. Nonetheless, to circumvent technology-driven solutionism, the development and implementation of DMHTs require a holistic, multi-sectoral, and participatory approach.

Abstract Background Involving young people (YP) as co‐researchers (YCoR) in mental health research is important for ethical and epistemological reasons. However, approaches to involve and evaluate ‘meaningful involvement’ in complex qualitative mental health research, and how to evaluate impacts (or change) for the co‐researcher and the research is less well defined. Objectives This co‐produced research explored the experiences of YP seeking help for emotional abuse and neglect via an online, peer‐peer message board. This practical case study aims to evidence the meaningful role and impacts associated with YCoR involvement in sensitive and complex mental health research using a flexible approach to co‐production. Methods During the Covid‐19 pandemic, we explored on‐ and off‐line approaches and adapted research methodology to build relationships, knowledge, skills, and confidence with YCoR. The virtual involvement was evaluated against the five principles of co‐production. Anonymous, continuous digital feedback, reflective practices and multiple dissemination outputs are used to evaluate the impact of the study on those involved and the research. Results Ten members of NeurOX Young People's Advisory Group were involved in the core project. Additional members were invited at later stages and in the dissemination of outputs. We describe a supportive, scaffolded learning approach to build capabilities and embed the lived experience of YCoR in complex qualitative research. A digital blended approach was acceptable to YCoR, principles of co‐production were met and the impact/benefits of involvement are described. To demonstrate the epistemological value of involving YP we evidence YPs capabilities for involvement and the ‘change’ or contribution YCoR made to the research through reflective practices. Conclusions This case study demonstrates how flexible approaches co‐production with YCoR can be robust and responsive to balance ethical and epistemological impact in complex mental health research. Supportive, scaffolded practices and safe environments helped build the confidence and capacity of YCoRs to demonstrate valuable phenomenological insights in the analysis. YP's perspectives on how they describe ‘meaningful’ and impactful involvement illustrate the reciprocal benefits gained through working together. Public Contribution This case study describes the YCoR involvement throughout the research and dissemination of outputs. YCoR co‐authors were involved in developing the outline and reviewing the draft stages of the manuscript.

Objectives We assess different approaches to seeking consent in research in secondary schools.Design We review evidence on seeking active versus passive parent/carer consent on participant response rates and profiles. We explore the legal and regulatory requirements governing student and parent/carer consent in the UK.Results Evidence demonstrates that requiring parent/carer active consent reduces response rates and introduces selection biases, which impact the rigour of research and hence its usefulness for assessing young people’s needs. There is no evidence on the impacts of seeking active versus passive student consent but this is likely to be marginal when researchers are directly in communication with students in schools. There is no legal requirement to seek active parent/carer consent for children’s involvement in research on non-medicinal intervention or observational studies. Such research is instead covered by common law, which indicates that it is acceptable to seek students’ own active consent when they are judged competent. General data protection regulation legislation does not change this. It is generally accepted that most secondary school students age 11+ are competent to provide their own consent for interventions though this should be assessed individually.Conclusion Allowing parent/carer opt-out rights recognises their autonomy while giving primacy to student autonomy. In the case of intervention research, most interventions are delivered at the level of the school so consent can only practically be sought from head teachers. Where interventions are individually targeted, seeking student active consent for these should be considered where feasible.

Abstract It is becoming increasingly clear that the field of empirical bioethics requires methodological innovations that can keep up with the scale and pace of contemporary research in health and medicine. With that in mind, we have recently argued for Design Bioethics—the use of purpose‐built, engineered research tools that allow researchers to investigate moral decision‐making in ways that are embodied and contextualized. In this paper, we outline the development, testing and implementation of a novel prototype tool in the Design Bioethics Workshop—with each step illustrated with collected data. Titled ‘Tracing Tomorrow’ (www.tracingtomorrow.org), the tool is a narrative game to investigate young people's values and preferences in the context of digital phenotyping for mental health. The process involved (1) Working with young people to discover, validate and define the morally relevant cases or problems, (2) Building and testing the game concept in collaboration with relevant groups and game developers, (3) Developing prototypes that were tested and iterated in partnership with groups of young people and game developers and (4) Disseminating the game to young people to collect data to investigate research questions. We argue that Design Bioethics yields tools that are relevant, representative and meaningful to target populations and provide improved data for bioethics analysis. Patient or Public Contribution In planning and conducting this study, we consulted with young people from a diverse range of backgrounds, including the NeurOX Young People's Advisory Group, the What Lies Ahead Junior Researchers Team, Censuswide youth participants and young people from the Livity Youth Network.

Objective This study aimed to assess US/UK adults’ attitudes towards COVID-19 ventilator and vaccine allocation.Design Online survey including US and UK adults, sampled to be representative for sex, age, race, household income and employment. A total of 2580 participated (women=1289, age range=18 to 85 years, Black American=114, BAME=138).Interventions Participants were asked to allocate ventilators or vaccines in scenarios involving individuals or groups with different medical risk and additional risk factors.Results Participant race did not impact vaccine or ventilator allocation decisions in the USA, but did impact ventilator allocation attitudes in the UK (F(4,602)=6.95, p

Abstract Context Both within politics and practice, the field of psychiatry is undergoing a significant transformation, as increasing emphasis is placed on the importance of involving those with lived experience in research. In response to this participatory turn, a push towards measuring the impact of patient involvement is also growing, seeking to identify how participation can improve research. Objective This paper examines the recent push towards measuring impact in relation to justifications underlying the democratization of research in psychiatry, revealing a disconnect between the two, and harms that could result from a singular focus on measuring impact. Discussion While those promoting and regulating participatory research tend to focus on the epistemic benefits of such research, many have pointed to both epistemic and ethical justifications underlying participatory research. The ethical reasons for involving service users loom especially large in psychiatry, given its unique history of abuse, the ways diagnoses can be utilized as tools for oppression, and the prevalence of coercion. The current focus on measuring the impact of involvement can be harmful, in that it obscures ethical reasons in favour of epistemic ones, potentially exacerbating issues common to participatory research, such as role confusion and ineffective, tokenistic participatory efforts. Conclusions We argue that to take the ethical reasons behind involvement in mental health research seriously will involve looking beyond impact and towards sharing power. We suggest three ways this can be done: measuring more than impact, building service user capacities and sharing power in realms outside of research.

Abstract Context The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them. The Convention inspired a surge in research that investigates young people's perspectives on health and wellness‐related concerns and that involves children as ‘co‐researchers'. Young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) are a widely used method to enable young people's involvement in all research stages, but there is a lack of academic literature to guide researchers on how to set up, run and evaluate the impact of such groups. Objective In this paper, we provide a step‐by‐step model, grounded in our own experience of setting up and coordinating the Oxford Neuroscience, Ethics and Society Young People's Advisory Group (NeurOx YPAG). This group supports studies at the intersection of ethics, mental health and novel technologies. Our model covers the following stages: deciding on the fit for co‐production, recruiting participants, developing collective principles of work, running a meeting and evaluating impact. Results We emphasize that throughout this process, researchers should take a critical stance by reflecting on whether a co‐production model fits their research scope and aims; ensuring (or aspiring to) representativeness within the group; valuing different kinds of expertise; and undertaking on‐going evaluations on the impact of the group on both the young people and the research. Conclusion Adopting a critical and reflective attitude can increase researchers' capacity to engage youth in democratic and inclusive ways, and to produce research outputs that are aligned with the target audience's needs and priorities.

The Africa Ethics Working Group (AEWG) is a South-South-North collaboration of bioethics and mental health researchers from sub-Saharan Africa, working to tackle emerging ethical challenges in global mental health research. Initially formed to provide ethical guidance for a neuro-psychiatric genomics research project, AEWG has evolved to address cross cutting ethical issues in mental health research aimed at addressing equity in North-South collaborations. Global South refers to economically developing countries (sub-Saharan Africa in this context) and Global North to economically developed countries (primarily Europe, UK and North America). In this letter we discuss lessons that as a group we have learnt over the last three years; lessons that similar collaborations could draw on. With increasing expertise from Global South as an outcome of several capacity strengthening initiatives, it is expected that the nature of scientific collaborations will shift to a truly equitable partnership. The AEWG provides a model to rethink contributions that each partner could make in these collaborations.

Introduction Matching treatment to specific patients is too often a matter of trial and error, while treatment efficacy should be optimised by limiting risks and costs and by incorporating patients’ preferences. Factors influencing an individual’s drug response in major depressive disorder may include a number of clinical variables (such as previous treatments, severity of illness, concomitant anxiety etc) as well demographics (for instance, age, weight, social support and family history). Our project, funded by the National Institute of Health Research, is aimed at developing and subsequently testing a precision medicine approach to the pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder in adults, which can be used in everyday clinical settings.Methods and analysis We will jointly synthesise data from patients with major depressive disorder, obtained from diverse datasets, including randomised trials as well as observational, real-world studies. We will summarise the highest quality and most up-to-date scientific evidence about comparative effectiveness and tolerability (adverse effects) of antidepressants for major depressive disorder, develop and externally validate prediction models to produce stratified treatment recommendations. Results from this analysis will subsequently inform a web-based platform and build a decision support tool combining the stratified recommendations with clinicians and patients’ preferences, to adapt the tool, increase its’ reliability and tailor treatment indications to the individual-patient level. We will then test whether use of the tool relative to treatment as usual in real-world clinical settings leads to enhanced treatment adherence and response, is acceptable to clinicians and patients, and is economically viable in the UK National Health Service.Discussion This is a clinically oriented study, coordinated by an international team of experts, with important implications for patients treated in real-world setting. This project will form a test-case that, if effective, will be extended to non-pharmacological treatments (either face-to-face or internet-delivered), to other populations and disorders in psychiatry (for instance, children and adolescents, or schizophrenia and treatment-resistant depression) and to other fields of medicine.

The debate about the desirability of using drugs to enhance human skills encompasses cognitive abilities such as memory and attention, and moral capacities such as emotional empathy and a sense of fairness. These two strands of literature in bioethics have grown relatively independent from each other, and an implicit framing assumption has emerged suggesting that apparently morally neutral cognitive capacities and paradigmatically moral capacities are distinct and vary independently of each other. Here, we identify key distinctions between competing accounts of cognitive enhancement and moral enhancement and argue that, despite the polarized nature of the bioethical debate, cognitive and moral capacities are intertwined. For example, moral behavior can be improved by enhancing “morally neutral” abilities such as attention span; and cognitive skills can be honed by means of socio-moral interaction. Further, cognitive skill is frequently assigned the abstract status of virtue and treated in the same way as more paradigmatically “moral” traits. We argue that the distinction between moral and cognitive enhancement is more apparent than real, since despite being nominally treated as distinct, cognitive and moral skills are frequently interdependent. As such we present evidence to support the claim that the enhancement of these two kinds of capacities cannot be clearly disaggregated from each other in the way that the theoretical poles of the debate in the literature suggest. We synthesize relevant scientific and bioethical literature and combine it with a line of analysis derived from Peter Hacker to show more clearly the terms of what can be said intelligibly about cognitive and moral skills and their enhancement. As a result of this analysis, we conclude that ethical questions in human bioenhancement are only fully intelligible at the level of persons imbued with feelings, thoughts, intentions, desires, values, and abilities, embedded within a particular social context, rather than at the level of pharmacological modulation of particular cognitive or affective capacities which, though conceptually distinguishable, in the embodied context of moral agency are profoundly intertwined.

Use of 'smart drugs' among UK students is described in frequent media reports as a rapidly increasing phenomenon. This article reports findings from the first large-scale survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) among students in the UK and Ireland. Conducted from February to September 2012, a survey of a convenience sample of 877 students measured PCE prevalence, attitudes, sources, purposes and ethics. Descriptive and logistic regression statistical methods were used to analyse the data. Lifetime prevalence of PCE using modafinil, methylphenidate or Adderall was under 10%, while past regular and current PCE users of these substances made up between 0.3%-4% of the survey population. A substantial majority of students was unaware of and/or uninterested in PCE; however about one third of students were interested in PCE. PCE users were more likely to be male, British and older students; predictors of PCE use included awareness of other students using PCEs, ADHD symptomatology, ethical concerns, and alcohol and cannabis use. The survey addresses the need for better evidence about PCE prevalence and practices among university students in the UK. We recommend PCE-related strategies for universities based on the survey findings.