Safeguarding in adolescent mental health research: navigating dilemmas and developing procedures.

Mental disorders are prevalent during adolescence. Self-harm and suicide are more common in adolescents with a probable mental disorder, with one in four reporting to have attempted self-harm. Research involving adolescents is, therefore, likely to include participants experiencing mental ill health, even if mental health is not the primary focus. Researchers should adopt procedures and principles that safeguard adolescent mental health in their research practice. Yet there are gaps between theory and practice of research with adolescents in relation to their mental health, and limited guidance is available.We discuss emerging safeguarding dilemmas and procedures in adolescent mental health research. Our experiences of safeguarding adolescent mental health are grounded in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research-funded SMART Schools Study. Drawing from this secondary school-based study, we focus on how our research team encountered and addressed a high prevalence of participants (aged 12-13 and 14-15 years) reporting thoughts and behaviours related to self-harm or suicide (24% of participants). This included reviewing our existing risk mitigation processes and consulting with several committees including young people with lived experiences of mental health.We present the SMART Schools study safeguarding approach for adolescent mental health. This encompasses key safeguarding principles, study procedures and relevant justifications. We address school and university roles and responsibilities, pupil understanding, and efficient, effective and secure communication pathways. We embed guidance throughout this article for researchers working with adolescents in the context of mental health. Lastly, we present five key recommendations to safeguard the mental health of adolescents participating in research, including (1) appointing a safeguarding lead within the research team; (2) codesigning a bespoke study safeguarding approach; (3) adopting a responsive approach to mental health safeguarding; (4) being transparent about the study mental health safeguarding approach and (5) report the implementation and outcomes of safeguarding approaches.Trial registration number ISRCTN77948572.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of contingency management for cannabis use in early psychosis: the CIRCLE randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance amongst people with psychosis. Continued cannabis use following the onset of psychosis is associated with poorer functional and clinical outcomes. However, finding effective ways of intervening has been very challenging. We examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive contingency management (CM), which involves incentives for abstinence from cannabis use, in people with a recent diagnosis of psychosis. METHODS: CIRCLE was a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited via Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services across the Midlands and South East of England. They had had at least one episode of clinically diagnosed psychosis (affective or non-affective); were aged 18 to 36; reported cannabis use in at least 12 out of the previous 24 weeks; and were not currently receiving treatment for cannabis misuse, or subject to a legal requirement for cannabis testing. Participants were randomised via a secure web-based service 1:1 to either an experimental arm, involving 12 weeks of CM plus a six-session psychoeducation package, or a control arm receiving the psychoeducation package only. The total potential voucher reward in the CM intervention was £240. The primary outcome was time to acute psychiatric care, operationalised as admission to an acute mental health service (including community alternatives to admission). Primary outcome data were collected from patient records at 18 months post-consent by assessors masked to allocation. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33576045. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-one participants were recruited between June 2012 and April 2016. Primary outcome data were obtained for 272 (98%) in the CM (experimental) group and 259 (95%) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in time to acute psychiatric care (the primary outcome) (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76, 1.40) between groups. By 18 months, 90 (33%) of participants in the CM group, and 85 (30%) of the control groups had been admitted at least once to an acute psychiatric service. Amongst those who had experienced an acute psychiatric admission, the median time to admission was 196 days (IQR 82, 364) in the CM group and 245 days (IQR 99, 382) in the control group. Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that there is an 81% likelihood that the intervention was cost-effective, mainly resulting from higher mean inpatient costs for the control group compared with the CM group; however, the cost difference between groups was not statistically significant. There were 58 adverse events, 27 in the CM group and 31 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results suggest that CM is not an effective intervention for improving the time to acute psychiatric admission or reducing cannabis use in psychosis, at least at the level of voucher reward offered.