Flourishing, Mental Health Professionals and the Role of Normative Dialogue.

This paper explores the dilemma faced by mental healthcare professionals in balancing treatment of mental disorders with promoting patient well-being and flourishing. With growing calls for a more explicit focus on patient flourishing in mental healthcare, we address two inter-related challenges: the lack of consensus on defining positive mental health and flourishing, and how professionals should respond to patients with controversial views on what is good for them. We discuss the relationship dynamics between healthcare providers and patients, proposing that 'liberal' approaches can provide a pragmatic framework to address disagreements about well-being in the context of flourishing-oriented mental healthcare. We acknowledge the criticisms of these approaches, including the potential for unintended paternalism and distrust. To mitigate these risks, we conclude by suggesting a mechanism to minimize the likelihood of unintended paternalism and foster patient trust.

Online peer support training to promote adolescents' emotional support skills, mental health and agency during COVID-19: Randomised controlled trial and qualitative evaluation.

Adolescents often look to their peers for emotional support, so it is critical that they are prepared to take on a supportive role, especially during a health crisis. Using a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN99248812, 28/05/2020), we tested the short-term efficacy of an online training programme to equip young people with skills to support to their peers' mental wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, one-hundred UK adolescents (aged 16-18) recruited through social media were randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate 5-day peer support training or a wait-list, via an independently generated allocation sequence. Primary outcomes were indicators of ability to help others (motivation, perceived skills, frequency of help provided, compassion to others and connectedness to peers). Secondary outcomes included emotional symptoms, mental wellbeing, and indicators of agency (civic engagement and self-efficacy). We also collected qualitative reports of participants' experience. Assessments were completed at baseline and 1 week post randomisation (primary endpoint), and up to 4 weeks post randomisation (training group only). The training increased support-giving skills, frequency of providing support, compassion and peer connectedness (medium-large-effect sizes), but not motivation to provide support, 1 week post randomisation, compared to controls. Gains in the training group were maintained 4 weeks post randomisation. Training also improved adolescents' mental health and agency, and qualitative reports revealed further positive outcomes including increased self-care and empowerment. Leveraging digital platforms that are familiar to young people, peer support training has the potential to enable adolescents to support their own and their peers' mental wellbeing during a health crisis.

How to build a game for empirical bioethics research: The case of 'Tracing Tomorrow'.

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.

Co-production to understand online help-seeking for young people experiencing emotional abuse and neglect: Building capabilities, adapting research methodology and evaluating involvement and impact.

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.

Ethical dimensions of translational developmental neuroscience research in autism.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, increasing research has been devoted to the identification of biomarkers for autism to help attain more objective diagnosis; enable early prediction of prognosis; and guide individualized intervention options. Early studies focused on the identification of genetic variants associated with autism, but more recently, research has expanded to investigate neurodevelopmental markers. While ethicists have extensively discussed issues around advances in autism genomics, much less ethical scrutiny has focused on research on early neurodevelopment and on the interventions being developed as a result. OBJECTIVES: We summarize the current state of the science on the identification of early markers for autism and its potential clinical applications, before providing an overview of the ethical issues arising from increasing understanding of children's neurodevelopment in very early life. RESULTS: Advances in the understanding of brain and behavioral trajectories preceding later autism diagnosis raise ethical concerns around three themes: (a) New models for understanding autism; (b) Risks and benefits of early identification and intervention; and (c) Communication of early concerns to families. These ethical issues should be further investigated in research conducted in partnership with autistic people and their families. CONCLUSIONS: This paper highlights the need for ethical scrutiny of early neurodevelopmental research in autism. Scrutiny requires expertise and methods from the basic sciences and bioethics, as well as constructive collaborations among autistic people, their parents, and autism researchers to anticipate early interventions that serve the community's interests and accommodate the varied experiences and preferences of people on the spectrum and their families.

Measuring the impact of participatory research in psychiatry: How the search for epistemic justifications obscures ethical considerations.

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.

Design Bioethics: A Theoretical Framework and Argument for Innovation in Bioethics Research.

Empirical research in bioethics has developed rapidly over the past decade, but has largely eschewed the use of technology-driven methodologies. We propose "design bioethics" as an area of conjoined theoretical and methodological innovation in the field, working across bioethics, health sciences and human-centred technological design. We demonstrate the potential of digital tools, particularly purpose-built digital games, to align with theoretical frameworks in bioethics for empirical research, integrating context, narrative and embodiment in moral decision-making. Purpose-built digital tools can engender situated engagement with bioethical questions; can achieve such engagement at scale; and can access groups traditionally under-represented in bioethics research and theory. If developed and used with appropriate rigor, tools motivated by "design bioethics" could offer unique insights into new and familiar normative and empirical issues in the field.

Ethical Issues in Consent for the Reuse of Data in Health Data Platforms.

Data platforms represent a new paradigm for carrying out health research. In the platform model, datasets are pooled for remote access and analysis, so novel insights for developing better stratified and/or personalised medicine approaches can be derived from their integration. If the integration of diverse datasets enables development of more accurate risk indicators, prognostic factors, or better treatments and interventions, this obviates the need for the sharing and reuse of data; and a platform-based approach is an appropriate model for facilitating this. Platform-based approaches thus require new thinking about consent. Here we defend an approach to meeting this challenge within the data platform model, grounded in: the notion of 'reasonable expectations' for the reuse of data; Waldron's account of 'integrity' as a heuristic for managing disagreement about the ethical permissibility of the approach; and the element of the social contract that emphasises the importance of public engagement in embedding new norms of research consistent with changing technological realities. While a social contract approach may sound appealing, however, it is incoherent in the context at hand. We defend a way forward guided by that part of the social contract which requires public approval for the proposal and argue that we have moral reasons to endorse a wider presumption of data reuse. However, we show that the relationship in question is not recognisably contractual and that the social contract approach is therefore misleading in this context. We conclude stating four requirements on which the legitimacy of our proposal rests.

Investigating assumptions of vulnerability: A case study of the exclusion of psychiatric inpatients as participants in genetic research in low- and middle-income contexts.

Psychiatric genetic research investigates the genetic basis of psychiatric disorders with the aim of more effectively understanding, treating, or, ultimately, preventing such disorders. Given the challenges of recruiting research participants into such studies, the potential for long-term benefits of such research, and seemingly minimal risk, a strong claim could be made that all non-acute psychiatric inpatients, including forensic and involuntary patients, should be included in such research, provided they have capacity to consent. There are tensions, however, regarding the ethics of recruiting psychiatric inpatients into such studies. In this paper our intention is to elucidate the source of these tensions from the perspective of research ethics committee interests and decision-making. We begin by defining inpatient status and outline some of the assumptions surrounding the structures of inpatient care. We then introduce contemporary conceptions of vulnerability, including Florencia Luna's account of vulnerability which we use as a framework for our analysis. While psychiatric inpatients could be subject to consent-related vulnerabilities, we suggest that a particular kind of exploitation-related vulnerability comes to the fore in the context of our case study. Moreover, a subset of these ethical concerns takes on particular weight in the context of genetic research in low- and middle-income countries. At the same time, the automatic exclusion of inpatients from research elicits justice-related vulnerabilities.

Debate: Promoting capabilities for young people's agency in the COVID-19 outbreak.

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a pervasive effect on young people's mental health and well-being, giving rise to feelings of deep uncertainty and lack of control. Inspired by Amartya Sen's capabilities framework, we argue that building capacity and creating opportunities for community and civic engagement during this time will help young people gain agency and well-being. We highlight two key areas for participatory engagement: coproduction of research, and peer-led interventions. Providing capabilities for young people's agency not only builds personal resilience, but also strengthens the quality of our research, interventions and overall response to the global health crisis.

Co-producing research with youth: The NeurOx young people's advisory group model.

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 ethics of global psychiatric genomics: Multilayered challenges to integrating genomics in global mental health and disability-A position paper of the Oxford Global Initiative in Neuropsychiatric GenEthics (NeuroGenE).

Psychiatric genomics has the potential to radically improve the prevention and early intervention of serious mental and neurodevelopmental disorders worldwide. However, little work has been done on the ethics of psychiatric genomics-an oversight that could result in poor local uptake, reduced practical/clinical application, and ethical violations in this rapidly developing area of scientific research. As part of the Global Project of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, the Global Initiative in Neuropsychiatric GenEthics (NeuroGenE) based at the University of Oxford aims to embed ethical inquiry within scientific investigation and engage with fundamental ethical questions around a psychiatric genomics approach to mental and neurodevelopmental disorder. This position paper sets out the core aims of the NeuroGenE research programme and explores the importance of a crosscutting research orientation in this field based on multidisciplinary methodologies which can ensure that efforts to translate and apply global psychiatric genomics in public policy and clinical practice are ethically grounded strategies, respectful of different cultures and contexts.

Fair, just and compassionate: A pilot for making allocation decisions for patients requesting experimental drugs outside of clinical trials.

Patients have received experimental pharmaceuticals outside of clinical trials for decades. There are no industry-wide best practices, and many companies that have granted compassionate use, or 'preapproval', access to their investigational products have done so without fanfare and without divulging the process or grounds on which decisions were made. The number of compassionate use requests has increased over time. Driving the demand are new treatments for serious unmet medical needs; patient advocacy groups pressing for access to emerging treatments; internet platforms enabling broad awareness of compelling cases or novel drugs and a lack of trust among some that the pharmaceutical industry and/or the FDA have patients' best interests in mind. High-profile cases in the media have highlighted the gap between patient expectations for compassionate use and company utilisation of fair processes to adjudicate requests. With many pharmaceutical manufacturers, patient groups, healthcare providers and policy analysts unhappy with the inequities of the status quo, fairer and more ethical management of compassionate use requests was needed. This paper reports on a novel collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and an academic medical ethics department that led to the formation of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committee (CompAC). Comprising medical experts, bioethicists and patient representatives, CompAC established an ethical framework for the allocation of a scarce investigational oncology agent to single patients requesting non-trial access. This is the first account of how the committee was formed and how it built an ethical framework and put it into practice.

Selective patient and public involvement: The promise and perils of pharmaceutical intervention for autism.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest the patient community should be consulted from the outset when designing and implementing basic biomedical research, but such patient communities may include conflicting views. We examined how engagement occurred in one such instance. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to scrutinize patient and public involvement (PPI) by a pan-European biomedical consortium working to develop drugs to treat autism. We aimed to use this as an example to illustrate how PPI has been utilized in biomedical research. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND ANALYSIS: Two public events, one in the UK and one in Denmark were conducted as part of the consortium's on-going PPI activities in 2014 and 2015. Sixty-six individuals submitted written comments on the consortium's research after these events. The textual data produced were analysed using a thematic approach. Approximately 71% of respondents reported themselves to be adults on the autism spectrum or parents of children with autism. RESULTS: The themes identified illustrated major differences between some community concerns and the biomedical research agenda. While treating autism per se. was seen as problematic by some, treating specific co-occurring problems was seen as helpful in some circumstances. The biomedical consortium selected PPI with a limited user viewpoint at its outset and more widely once basic research was on-going. DISCUSSION: This case illustrates what we term "selective PPI" where only a sympathetic and/or limited patient viewpoint is included. Findings highlight the perils of using selective PPI to legitimise scientific endeavours, and the possibilities for constructive dialogue.

Just Policy? An Ethical Analysis of Early Intervention Policy Guidance.

Early intervention (EI) aims to identify children or families at risk of poor health, and take preventative measures at an early stage, when intervention is more likely to succeed. EI is concerned with the just distribution of "life chances," so that all children are given fair opportunity to realize their potential and lead a good life; EI policy design, therefore, invokes ethical questions about the balance of responsibilities between the state, society, and individuals in addressing inequalities. We analyze a corpus of EI policy guidance to investigate explicit and implicit ethical arguments about who should be held morally responsible for safeguarding child health and well-being. We examine the implications of these claims and explore what it would mean to put the proposed policies into practice. We conclude with some remarks about the useful role that philosophical analysis can play in EI policy development.

Pragmatic Neuroethics: Lived Experiences as a Source of Moral Knowledge.

In this article, we present a pragmatic approach to neuroethics, referring back to John Dewey and his articulation of the "common good" and its discovery through systematic methods. Pragmatic neuroethics bridges philosophy and social sciences and, at a very basic level, considers that ethics is not dissociable from lived experiences and everyday moral choices. We reflect on the integration between empirical methods and normative questions, using as our platform recent bioethical and neuropsychological research into moral cognition, action, and experience. Finally, we present the protocol of a study concerning teenagers' morality in everyday life, discussing our epistemological choices as an example of a pragmatic approach in empirical ethics. We hope that this article conveys that even though the scope of neuroethics is broad, it is important not to move too far from the real life encounters that give rise to moral questions in the first place.

Commentary: On action guidance and good practice in early intervention for psychosis: a response to Bortolotti & Jefferson (2018).

In this response to Bortolotti and Jefferson (2018), we discuss the action-guidance problem of moral attributes and the risk of superiority illusion in early intervention for psychosis. First, we suggest that guidance documents are not devoid of behavioural recommendations and goals for service provision, though these are not linked to the ethical dimensions of good practice embedded in the documents. Second, we acknowledge the risk of superiority illusion; we suggest that this risk may be reduced if the ethical and clinical goals of early intervention are presented as interrelated and measurable.

What constitutes 'good practice' in early intervention for psychosis? Analysis of clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services have been implemented with the dual aims of preventing harmful outcomes associated with early-onset psychosis and improving prognosis. However, concerns have been raised regarding the ethical implications of involving young people in EIP services. One way to ensure high ethical standards and promote good practice in EIP delivery is through governance of clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the normative dimensions of good practice in EIP through examination of clinical guideline documents published in England over the past 15 years. METHODS: A total of 14 clinical guidelines and relevant policy documents for EIP were retrieved and analysed using a mixed inductive and deductive thematic approach. Themes were derived from the data itself, whereas the development of broader categories was performed through a constant comparison with the scientific literature describing ethical issues in EIP. RESULTS: Ethical touchpoints of good practice in EIP included both procedural and substantive factors, which were seen to be interdependent and mutually constitutive. These ethical touchpoints were largely implicit in the documents analysed. Procedural requirements of EIP service delivery consisted of norms and rules pertaining to EIP service structure, adherence to codes of ethics, inclusivity, patient and family centredness and appropriate treatment provision. Substantive factors consisted of moral attributes that should be cultivated by healthcare professionals working in EIP: competency, empathy, sensitivity and trustworthiness. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that, to ensure good practice in EIP, procedural and substantive ethical expectations embedded in EIP guideline documents should be made explicit in EIP service and care delivery. We suggest that the procedural and substantive factors highlighted in this paper contribute useful dimensions for the eventual evaluation of good practice in EIP services across England.

Commentary: What makes a life go well? Moral functioning and quality of life measurement in neurodevelopmental disorders - reflections on Jonsson et al. (2017).

Jonsson et al.'s excellent review of the literature on quality of life (QoL) and childhood mental and behavioural disorders (Jonsson et al., ) highlights the need for studies that utilise child self-reported QoL, in contrast to parent or proxy QoL measures, and further challenges the field to develop QoL measures that 'put the child's own views and priorities first'.