Best practice for integrating digital interventions into clinical care for young people at risk of suicide: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Digital tools have the capacity to complement and enhance clinical care for young people at risk of suicide. Despite the rapid rise of digital tools, their rate of integration into clinical practice remains low. The poor uptake of digital tools may be in part due to the lack of best-practice guidelines for clinicians and services to safely apply them with this population. METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted to produce a set of best-practice guidelines for clinicians and services on integrating digital tools into clinical care for young people at risk of suicide. First, a questionnaire was developed incorporating action items derived from peer-reviewed and grey literature, and stakeholder interviews with 17 participants. Next, two independent expert panels comprising professionals (academics and clinical staff; n = 20) and young people with lived experience of using digital technology for support with suicidal thoughts and behaviours (n = 29) rated items across two consensus rounds. Items reaching consensus (rated as "essential" or "important" by at least 80% of panel members) at the end of round two were collated into a set of guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 326 individual items rated by the panels, 188 (57.7%) reached consensus for inclusion in the guidelines. The endorsed items provide guidance on important topics when working with young people, including when and for whom digital tools should be used, how to select a digital tool and identify potentially harmful content, and identifying and managing suicide risk conveyed via digital tools. Several items directed at services (rather than individual clinicians) were also endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers world-first evidence-informed guidelines for clinicians and services to integrate digital tools into clinical care for young people at risk of suicide. Implementation of the guidelines is an important next step and will hopefully lead to improved uptake of potentially helpful digital tools in clinical practice.

Telehealth use by mental health professionals during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To examine and describe telehealth use and attitudes among mental health professionals in Australia and New Zealand during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants completed a brief online survey between May and July 2020. Participants were recruited via peak and professional organisations and through psychology-focused social media groups and networks. The survey examined frequency of telehealth use, reasons for non-use, telehealth modalities, prior use, attitudes towards use, plans for future use, and training, information or resource needs. RESULTS: A total of 528 professionals (85.2% female) participated in the survey, of which 98.9% reported using telehealth and 32.2% reported using telehealth exclusively. Respondents were less likely to use telehealth if they worked with clients experiencing complex issues (e.g. trauma), had more hours of weekly client contact, had a choice about whether to use telehealth or felt less positive about using technology. Respondents were more likely to hold positive views towards telehealth if they were female, had used online programmes with clients previously, were frequent telehealth users and were comfortable using technology. Participants expressed mixed views on client safety and the impact of telehealth on therapeutic process and effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Telehealth has a clear and ongoing role within mental healthcare and there is a need for strong guidance for professionals on how to manage client risk, privacy, security and adapt therapy for delivery via telehealth. In particular, there is a need for individual-, organisational-, professional- and policy-level responses to ensure that telehealth remains a viable and effective healthcare medium into the future.

Community treatment orders: towards a new research agenda.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report on a half-day multi-stakeholder symposium on community treatment orders (CTOs) hosted by the Melbourne Social Equity Institute (MSEI), which identified research gaps and opportunities, and produced an agreed agenda for future CTO research. METHODS: The MSEI convened a symposium for 22 experts in CTO research to discuss research priorities in this field in Australasia. An independent moderator elicited views and recommendations and produced a report detailing possible research projects. RESULTS: Research on CTOs is contentious and there is a need to gather and examine information regarding both their use and utility. Due to the complexities involved, it was agreed that research should be undertaken in partnership with persons with had lived experience of mental health problems, clinicians, policymakers and other interdisciplinary stakeholders. Five key areas for future investigation were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The issues and recommendations arising from the symposium should shape the scope, nature and conduct of future research directions in the field.

Alternatives to Compulsory Detention and Treatment and Coercive Practices in Mental Health Settings.

Informed consent to medical treatment is generally presumed to be central to the provision of good quality health care. Despite this presumption, legislation exists in many countries that enables the compulsory detention and treatment of people with severe mental health conditions regardless of their wishes. This column discusses global efforts to reduce, prevent and end compulsory detention, treatment and coercive practices in mental health and community settings. It summarises the current state of research, identifying overarching themes in the search for effective non-coercive practices, before focusing on hospital and community-based initiatives.

Human rights promotion and the 'Geneva impasse' in mental healthcare: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The World Psychiatric Association recently emphasised that the protection of human rights in mental healthcare was a 'central concern'. This paper examines recent literature on human rights and mental healthcare. AIMS: To (a) outline how international human rights law distinguishes between the protection and promotion of human rights; and (b) explore the literature on promoting human rights in mental healthcare which avoids what has been termed the 'Geneva impasse' between those who argue that compulsory care and treatment can never comply with human rights law and those who argue that they can if certain conditions are met. METHOD: The following doctrinal methodology was used: (a) identification and detailed analysis of international human rights conventions and commentaries; (b) identification of key literature on human rights and mental healthcare; and (c) critical analysis of key issues emerging from the literature. RESULTS: Much of the literature on human rights and mental healthcare focuses on whether restrictions on compulsory care are required to meet the requirements of United Nations Conventions. There is an emerging literature identifying measures to promote the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of mental health. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a focus on protecting the rights to liberty and equality before the law for mental health patients. The nascent literature on promoting human rights in mental healthcare could mark a way forward beyond the 'Geneva impasse' that has dominated public debate in recent years.

To chat or bot to chat: Ethical issues with using chatbots in mental health.

This paper presents a critical review of key ethical issues raised by the emergence of mental health chatbots. Chatbots use varying degrees of artificial intelligence and are increasingly deployed in many different domains including mental health. The technology may sometimes be beneficial, such as when it promotes access to mental health information and services. Yet, chatbots raise a variety of ethical concerns that are often magnified in people experiencing mental ill-health. These ethical challenges need to be appreciated and addressed throughout the technology pipeline. After identifying and examining four important ethical issues by means of a recognised ethical framework comprised of five key principles, the paper offers recommendations to guide chatbot designers, purveyers, researchers and mental health practitioners in the ethical creation and deployment of chatbots for mental health.

Ethics and Law in Research on Algorithmic and Data-Driven Technology in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty surrounds the ethical and legal implications of algorithmic and data-driven technologies in the mental health context, including technologies characterized as artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and other forms of automation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to survey empirical scholarly literature on the application of algorithmic and data-driven technologies in mental health initiatives to identify the legal and ethical issues that have been raised. METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed empirical studies on the application of algorithmic technologies in mental health care in the Scopus, Embase, and Association for Computing Machinery databases. A total of 1078 relevant peer-reviewed applied studies were identified, which were narrowed to 132 empirical research papers for review based on selection criteria. Conventional content analysis was undertaken to address our aims, and this was supplemented by a keyword-in-context analysis. RESULTS: We grouped the findings into the following five categories of technology: social media (53/132, 40.1%), smartphones (37/132, 28%), sensing technology (20/132, 15.1%), chatbots (5/132, 3.8%), and miscellaneous (17/132, 12.9%). Most initiatives were directed toward detection and diagnosis. Most papers discussed privacy, mainly in terms of respecting the privacy of research participants. There was relatively little discussion of privacy in this context. A small number of studies discussed ethics directly (10/132, 7.6%) and indirectly (10/132, 7.6%). Legal issues were not substantively discussed in any studies, although some legal issues were discussed in passing (7/132, 5.3%), such as the rights of user subjects and privacy law compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Ethical and legal issues tend to not be explicitly addressed in empirical studies on algorithmic and data-driven technologies in mental health initiatives. Scholars may have considered ethical or legal matters at the ethics committee or institutional review board stage. If so, this consideration seldom appears in published materials in applied research in any detail. The form itself of peer-reviewed papers that detail applied research in this field may well preclude a substantial focus on ethics and law. Regardless, we identified several concerns, including the near-complete lack of involvement of mental health service users, the scant consideration of algorithmic accountability, and the potential for overmedicalization and techno-solutionism. Most papers were published in the computer science field at the pilot or exploratory stages. Thus, these technologies could be appropriated into practice in rarely acknowledged ways, with serious legal and ethical implications.

Mapping the rise of digital mental health technologies: Emerging issues for law and society.

The use of digital technologies in mental health initiatives is expanding, leading to calls for clearer legal and regulatory frameworks. However, gaps in knowledge about the scale and nature of change impede efforts to develop responsible public governance in the early stages of what may be the mass uptake of 'digital mental health technologies'. This article maps established and emerging technologies in the mental health context with an eye to locating major socio-legal issues. The paper discusses various types of technology, including those designed for information sharing, communication, clinical decision support, 'digital therapies', patient and/or population monitoring and control, bio-informatics and personalised medicine, and service user health informatics. The discussion is organised around domains of use based on the actors who use the technologies, and those on whom they are used. These actors go beyond mental health service users and practitioners/service providers, and include health and social system or resource managers, data management services, private companies that collect personal data (such as major technology corporations and data brokers), and multiple government agencies and private sector actors across diverse fields of criminal justice, education, and so on. The mapping exercise offers a starting point to better identify cross-cutting legal, ethical and social issues at the convergence of digital technology and contemporary mental health practice.

An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services.

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person's wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past 30 years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.