Explore the vast range of titles available.

Mobile devices offer a scalable opportunity to collect longitudinal data that facilitate advances in mental health treatment to address the burden of mental health conditions in young people. Sharing these data with the research community is critical to gaining maximal value from rich data of this nature. However, the highly personal nature of the data necessitates understanding the conditions under which young people are willing to share them. To answer this question, we developed the MindKind Study, a multinational, mixed methods study that solicits young people's preferences for how their data are governed and quantifies potential participants' willingness to join under different conditions. We employed a community-based participatory approach, involving young people as stakeholders and co-researchers. At sites in India, South Africa, and the UK, we enrolled 3575 participants ages 16-24 in the mobile app-mediated quantitative study and 143 participants in the public deliberation-based qualitative study. We found that while youth participants have strong preferences for data governance, these preferences did not translate into (un)willingness to join the smartphone-based study. Participants grappled with the risks and benefits of participation as well as their desire that the \"right people\" access their data. Throughout the study, we recognized young people's commitment to finding solutions and co-producing research architectures to allow for more open sharing of mental health data to accelerate and derive maximal benefit from research.

Public deliberation is a qualitative research method that has successfully been used to solicit laypeople's perspectives on health ethics topics, but it remains unclear whether this traditionally in-person method can be translated to the online context. The MindKind Study conducted public deliberation sessions to gauge the concerns and aspirations of young people in India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom with regard to a prospective mental health databank. This paper details our adaptations to and evaluation of the public deliberation method in an online context, especially in the presence of a digital divide. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of online public deliberation and share emerging learnings in a remote, disseminated qualitative research context. We convened 2-hour structured deliberation sessions over an online video conferencing platform (Zoom). We provided participants with multimedia informational materials describing different ways to manage mental health data. We analyzed the quality of online public deliberation in variable resource settings on the basis of (1) equal participation, (2) respect for the opinions of others, (3) adoption of a societal perspective, and (4) reasoned justification of ideas. To assess the depth of comprehension of the informational materials, we used qualitative data that pertained directly to the materials provided. The sessions were broadly of high quality. Some sessions were affected by an unstable internet connection and subsequent multimodal participation, complicating our ability to perform a quality assessment. English-speaking participants displayed a deep understanding of complex informational materials. We found that participants were particularly sensitive to linguistic and semiotic choices in the informational materials. A more fundamental barrier to understanding was encountered by participants who used materials translated from English. Although online public deliberation may have quality outcomes similar to those of in-person public deliberation, researchers who use remote methods should plan for technological and linguistic barriers when working with a multinational population. Our recommendations to researchers include budgetary planning, logistical considerations, and ensuring participants' psychological safety.

Public involvement in research is a growing phenomenon as well as a condition of research funding, and it is often referred to as coproduction. Coproduction involves stakeholder contributions at every stage of research, but different processes exist. However, the impact of coproduction on research is not well understood. Web-based young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) were established as part of the MindKind study at 3 sites (India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom) to coproduce the wider research study. Each group site, led by a professional youth advisor, conducted all youth coproduction activities collaboratively with other research staff. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of youth coproduction in the MindKind study. To measure the impact of web-based youth coproduction on all stakeholders, the following methods were used: analysis of project documents, capturing the views of stakeholders using the Most Significant Change technique, and impact frameworks to assess the impact of youth coproduction on specific stakeholder outcomes. Data were analyzed in collaboration with researchers, advisors, and YPAG members to explore the impact of youth coproduction on research. The impact was recorded on 5 levels. First, at the paradigmatic level, a novel method of conducting research allowed for a widely diverse group of YPAG representations, influencing study priorities, conceptualization, and design. Second, at the infrastructural level, the YPAG and youth advisors meaningfully contributed to the dissemination of materials; infrastructural constraints of undertaking coproduction were also identified. Third, at the organizational level, coproduction necessitated implementing new communication practices, such as a web-based shared platform. This meant that materials were easily accessible to the whole team and communication streams remained consistent. Fourth, at the group level, authentic relationships developed between the YPAG members, advisors, and the rest of the team, facilitated by regular web-based contact. Finally, at the individual level, participants reported enhanced insights into mental well-being and appreciation for the opportunity to engage in research. This study revealed several factors that shape the creation of web-based coproduction, with clear positive outcomes for advisors, YPAG members, researchers, and other project staff. However, several challenges of coproduced research were also encountered in multiple contexts and amid pressing timelines. For systematic reporting of the impact of youth coproduction, we propose that monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems be designed and implemented early.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279857.].

Mobile devices offer a scalable opportunity to collect longitudinal data that facilitate advances in mental health treatment to address the burden of mental health conditions in young people. Sharing these data with the research community is critical to gaining maximal value from rich data of this nature. However, the highly personal nature of the data necessitates understanding the conditions under which young people are willing to share them. To answer this question, we developed the MindKind Study, a multinational, mixed methods study that solicits young people’s preferences for how their data are governed and quantifies potential participants’ willingness to join under different conditions. We employed a community-based participatory approach, involving young people as stakeholders and co-researchers. At sites in India, South Africa, and the UK, we enrolled 3575 participants ages 16–24 in the mobile app-mediated quantitative study and 143 participants in the public deliberation-based qualitative study. We found that while youth participants have strong preferences for data governance, these preferences did not translate into (un)willingness to join the smartphone-based study. Participants grappled with the risks and benefits of participation as well as their desire that the “right people” access their data. Throughout the study, we recognized young people’s commitment to finding solutions and co-producing research architectures to allow for more open sharing of mental health data to accelerate and derive maximal benefit from research.

Introduction Engaging youth in mental health research and intervention design has the potential to improve their relevance and effectiveness. Frameworks like Roger Hart's ladder of participation, Shier's pathways to participation and Lundy's voice and influence model aim to balance power between youth and adults. Hart's Ladder, specifically, is underutilized in global mental health research, presenting new opportunities to examine power dynamics across various contexts. Drawing on Hart's ladder, our study examined youth engagement in mental health research across high‐ and middle‐income countries using Internet‐based technologies, evaluating youth involvement in decision‐making and presenting research stages that illustrate these engagements. Methods We conducted a directed content analysis of youth engagement in the study using primary data from project documents, weekly AirTable updates and discussions and interviews with youth and the research consortium. Using Hart's Ladder as a framework, we describe youth engagement along rungs throughout different research stages: cross‐cutting research process, onboarding, formative research and quantitative and qualitative study designs. Results Youth engagement in the MindKind study fluctuated between Rung 4 (‘Assign, but informed’) and Rung 7 (‘Youth initiated and directed’) on Hart's Ladder. Engagement was minimal in the early project stages as project structures and goals were defined, with some youth feeling that their experiences were underutilized and many decisions being adult‐led. Communication challenges and structural constraints, like tight timelines and limited budget, hindered youth engagement in highest ladder rungs. Despite these obstacles, youth engagement increased, particularly in developing recruitment strategies and in shaping data governance models and the qualitative study design. Youth helped refine research tools and protocols, resulting in moderate to substantial engagement in the later research stages. Conclusion Our findings emphasize the value of youth–adult partnerships, which offer promise in amplifying voices and nurturing skills, leadership and inclusiveness of young people. Youth engagement in project decision‐making progressed from lower to higher rungs on Hart's Ladder over time; however, this was not linear. Effective youth engagement requires dynamic strategies, transparent communication and mutual respect, shaping outcomes that authentically reflect diverse perspectives and mental health experiences. Patient or Public Contribution There was substantial patient and public involvement in this study. This paper reports findings on youth engagement conducted with 35 young people from India, South Africa and the United Kingdom, all of whom had lived experience of mental health challenges. Youth engagement in the MindKind study was coordinated and led by three professional youth advisors (PYAs) in these contexts, who were also young people with lived experience of mental health challenges. Each of the three study sites embedded a full‐time, community‐based PYA within their study team to inform all aspects of the research project, including the development of informational materials and the facilitation of Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG) sessions referenced in this paper. Each PYA also consulted with a site‐specific YPAG that met bi‐monthly throughout the project, shaping the formation of study materials and serving as a test group in both the quantitative and qualitative studies. Youth participants in this study also contributed extensively, engaging in data collection and manuscript writing. The following youth advisory panels members (J.B., L.B., D.O.J., M.V.) and all PYAs (E.B., S.R., R.S.) in the MindKind study contributed to the writing of this manuscript and are acknowledged as co‐authors.