Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cross-sector collaboration is increasingly recognized as essential for addressing complex health challenges, including those in mental health. Industry-academic partnerships play a vital role in advancing research and developing health solutions, yet differing priorities and perspectives can make collaboration complex. This study aimed to identify key principles to support effective industry-academic partnerships, from the perspective of industry partners, and develop this into actionable guidance, which can be applied across sectors. Mental health served as a motivating example due to its urgent public health relevance and the growing role of digital innovation. Using a 3-stage, mixed-methods approach, we conducted a web-based survey of UK-based digital mental health companies (N=22) to identify key barriers and facilitators to industry-academic partnerships. This was followed by 2 focus groups (n=5) that explored emerging themes from the survey using thematic analysis. Finally, we conducted a workshop with industry representatives, researchers, clinicians, and PPI members to co-develop the Principles of Industry-Academic Partnerships (PIP) guidance. Survey findings highlighted that industry partners valued academic collaboration for enhancing credibility, facilitating knowledge transfer, and gaining access to PPI networks. However, key barriers included high costs, slow academic timelines, and complex contracting processes. The 4 major themes that emerged from the focus groups were: advantages of collaboration, cultural differences between organizations, collaboration models, and structural barriers within universities. Through informed discussions in the workshop, these themes were explored, leading to the development of 14 actionable strategies. These strategies reflect industry perspectives and formed the PIP guidance, categorized under project initiation, defining the scope and agreements, project execution, and promoting sustainability. The PIP guidance provides a practical framework to support more effective and mutually beneficial collaborations between industry and academia. Developed through the lens of mental health research, the strategies identified are broadly applicable across disciplines where cross-sector partnerships are essential. Industry partners valued academic collaborations for their credibility and scientific rigor, but highlighted persistent structural and cultural barriers within universities. Addressing these challenges by aligning expectations and timelines, adopting flexible collaboration models, and streamlining operational processes can help foster impactful and sustainable partnerships in mental health and beyond.

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 ). Plain English Summary This study aims to understand how young people are involved in mental health projects (namely: research, intervention, and product development) and how their perspectives shape the outcomes. Two approaches, Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), are often used in these projects, but it’s not clear how they differ or how young people are involved. To explore this, the researchers will review existing literature on mental health projects involving young people. They will search databases for articles that describe or evaluate these projects, focusing on how young people are involved in the research and/or development processes. They will include studies in English that have been peer-reviewed and cover both numerical and text-based research. Young people will be involved to provide feedback from their perspective. This review will follow established guidelines to ensure trustworthiness and transparency. The findings from this review will help researchers and professionals understand the best ways to involve young people in mental health projects. By clarifying the differences between PPI and RRI and highlighting effective strategies, this study aims to improve future research and ultimately benefit young people’s mental health.

Background Self‐harm and suicide related behaviours are increasing in young people, and clinical support is not adequately meeting needs. Improved approaches to assessment and the clinical management of self‐harm will result from codesign processes and include greater shared decision‐making between young people and practitioners. The CaTS‐App (an adapted digital version of the existing Card‐Sort Task for Self‐harm research tool) aims to facilitate a collaborative understanding of adolescent self‐harm and support decision‐making within clinical settings. The codevelopment of a digital, clinical tool which meets the needs of multiple stakeholders requires careful consideration. Methods We present a case‐study describing the participatory aspects of the development of the CaTS‐App, which included comprehensive patient involvement, research activities and coproduction with diverse young people aged 17–24 with lived experience of self‐harm. We share our processes and activities to deliver safe, engaging, sustainable, ethical and responsible participatory practice and co‐created knowledge, in the codevelopment of the CaTS‐App. Results Activities spanned a 48‐month period in both face‐to‐face and online settings. Example processes and activities are provided in narrative, tabular and diagrammatic form, alongside discussion of the rationale for choices made. A summary methodology is also shared to stimulate continued discussion and development of participatory approaches in digital mental health. Conclusions The paper contributes important insight and practical detail for the delivery of genuine participatory processes in digital mental health development when working with a population who may be considered vulnerable. We discuss a case‐study and working methodology for meaningful, safe and responsible involvement in the early Planning and Discovery phase of the development of a novel assessment and intervention app for self‐harm—the CaTS‐App This paper contributes to important discussions about the process and value of centering and evaluating participatory processes in the development of digital mental health interventions for self‐harm.

Background The rapid transition to digital working, accelerated due to the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has impacted the involvement of patients and public in research. This paper presents experiences of engaging in digital Patient and Public Involvement (e-PPI) in dementia research since the lockdowns, offering recommendations regarding future digital and hybrid working. Furthermore, it introduces a co-produced framework for researchers, PPI coordinators and public contributors to identify and discuss challenges and opportunities provided by e-PPI. Methods Two online workshops and one individual interview were performed with a group of researchers and PPI coordinators with experience in PPI in dementia research, and with an existing dementia PPI group having some experience of working online during the pandemic. The project was constructed as a PPI activity, with the MindTech Involvement Team (PPI group) involved in the entire process, and a collaborative data analysis process was adopted. Results After refinement of the coding structure, the MindTech Involvement Team and Project Leaders identified four main themes, resulting in the ‘E-nabling Digital Co-production' Framework. During this framework development, different positions were expressed, associated with the transition to digital working. Two main themes were shared by the participating groups regarding e-PPI: wider potential reach without geographical constraints, and the perception of more business-like sessions with reduced opportunities for social interactions and communication. Specifically for dementia research, whilst e-PPI may allow public contributors to attend more meetings, potentially mutually supportive environments provided by face-to-face meetings could be diminished, with carers experiencing a possible reduction in informal respite opportunities. Conclusions Through involving public contributors, researchers, and PPI coordinators with a focus on digital PPI in dementia research, we were able to further refine and co-produce the ‘E-nabling Digital Co-production' Framework. Demonstrating potential for analysis of benefits and limitations within e-PPI, it was possible to identify both general insights and those specific to dementia research. However, the most significant contribution of the framework is the potential to support local journeys of co-production in ongoing digital and hybrid public involvement activities. Plain English Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the engagement of patients and the public in research. Lockdowns, social distancing, and reduced physical contact have affected the involvement of public contributors in research studies. In particular, the pandemic triggered a rapid transition to digital working, increasing the use of Information and Communication Technologies such as video conferencing on computers and mobile devices. With little time to reflect on the consequences of digital working in PPI and with a continuing legacy of hybrid or blended approaches to involvement, this project highlights the challenges and potential for e-PPI approaches (electronic/digital PPI) within the context of dementia research. In addition to examining the transition to digital working in this area, we present a co-produced framework for researchers, PPI coordinators and public contributors.

Purpose Cryptoglandular anal fistula continues to be a subject of extensive surgical research due to the lack of effective and enduring treatments, some of which incur risks to continence and quality of life. However, the patient experience of disease has seldom been reported. The aims of this study are to understand the impact of living with a fistula and the treatment outcomes that are valued by patients. Methods Patients with cryptoglandular anal fistula were recruited using purposive sampling from two tertiary referral centres in the UK and the Netherlands. Patients underwent semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Dutch transcripts were translated into English and underwent independent, thematic analysis using open coding by two study team members to identify common themes and sub-themes. Results Twenty interviews were conducted before saturation was reached (11 male, median age 49, Interquartile range 39–55 years). Four broad themes emerged, covering the physical symptoms of fistula, the patient journey towards understanding the condition, life impact, and treatment. Several inter-related sub-themes were found, reflecting the extensive impact and adjustment that the disease entails. Conclusion The impact of cryptoglandular anal fistula extends beyond the physical symptoms of pain and discharge, requires significant readjustment, and often negatively impacts psycho-social wellbeing. These aspects of disease should receive greater attention in future assessment of treatment and quality of life.

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. 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. 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. Open Science Framework (registration: DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N4EDB).

IntroductionWhile digital technologies can increase the availability and access to evidence-based interventions, little is known about how users engage with them and the mechanisms associated with effective outcomes. Process evaluations are an important component in understanding the aforementioned factors. The ‘SPARX-UK’ study is a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility trial evaluating personalised human-supported (from an ‘eCoach’) vs a self-directed computerised cognitive behavioural therapy intervention (cCBT), called SPARX (Smart, Positive, Active, Realistic, X-factor thoughts), aimed at adolescents with mild to moderate depression. We are comparing supported vs self-directed delivery of SPARX to establish which format should be used in a proposed definitive trial of SPARX. The control is a waitlist group. We will conduct a process evaluation alongside the trial to determine how the intervention is implemented and provide context for interpreting the feasibility trial outcomes. We will also look at the acceptability of SPARX and how users engage with the intervention. This protocol paper describes the rationale, aims and methodology of the SPARX-UK trial process evaluation.Methods and analysisThe process evaluation will use a mixed-methods design following the UK Medical Research Council’s 2015 guidelines, comprising quantitative and qualitative data collection. This will include analysing data usage of participants in the intervention arms; purposively sampled, semi-structured interviews of adolescents, parents/guardians, eCoaches and clinicians/practitioners from the SPARX-UK trial; and analysis of qualitative comments from a survey from those who dropped out early from the trial. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively. We will use thematic analysis in a framework approach to analyse qualitative data. Quantitative and qualitative data will be mixed and integrated to provide an understanding of how the intervention was implemented and how adolescents interacted with the intervention. This process evaluation will explore the experiences of adolescent participants, parents/guardians, eCoaches and clinicians/practitioners in relation to a complex digital intervention.EthicsEthical approval was granted by the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority South West - Cornwall & Plymouth Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Ref: 22/SW/0149).DisseminationContextualising how the intervention was implemented, and the variations in uptake and engagement, will help us to understand the trial findings in greater depth. The findings from this process evaluation will also inform the decision about whether and how to proceed with a full randomised controlled trial, as well as the development of more effective interventions which can be personalised more precisely via varying levels of human support. We plan to publish the findings of the process evaluation and the wider project in peer-reviewed journals, as well as disseminate via academic conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN: ISRCTN15124804. Registered on 16 January 2023, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15124804.

IntroductionPurrble, a socially assistive robot, was codesigned with children to support in situ emotion regulation. Preliminary evidence has found that LGBTQ+ youth are receptive to Purrble and find it to be an acceptable intervention to assist with emotion dysregulation and their experiences of self-harm. The present study is designed to evaluate the impact of access to Purrble among LGBTQ+ youth who have self-harmful thoughts, when compared with waitlist controls.Methods and analysisThe study is a single-blind, randomised control trial comparing access to the Purrble robot with waitlist control. A total of 168 LGBTQ+ youth aged 16–25 years with current self-harmful ideation will be recruited, all based within the UK. The primary outcome is emotion dysregulation (Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale-8) measured weekly across a 13-week period, including three pre-deployment timepoints. Secondary outcomes include self-harm (Self-Harm Questionnaire), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9). We will conduct analyses using linear mixed models to assess primary and secondary hypotheses. Intervention participants will have unlimited access to Purrble over the deployment period, which can be used as much or as little as they like. After all assessments, control participants will receive their Purrble, with all participants keeping the robot after the end of the study. After the study has ended, a subset of participants will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore engagement and appropriation of Purrble, considering the young people’s own views of Purrble as an intervention device.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received from King’s College London (RESCM-22/23-34570). Findings will be disseminated in peer review open access journals and at academic conferences.Trial registration numberNCT06025942.

\"The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World\" edited by Francis Robinson is reviewed.

Woodcock reviews \"Cairo: The City Victorious\" by Max Rodenbeck.