2026 ECNP Congress

PS01-1165

Guiding principles for youth participation in biological mental health research: The CELEBRATE Consensus Framework

Luca Sforzini — C. Ribeiro Perez, S. Alford, L. Arseneault, G.J. Barker, C. Brown, J.P.C. Chang, P. Cooke, S. Golden, M. Fazel, H.L. Fisher, Y. Flossbach, H. Ganesh, L. Killham Walter, C. Kosik-Gonzalez, A.C. Lavis, N. Mac Giollabhui, D.P. Moriarity, E. Piddock, L. Schmaal, L. Schmid, U. Schmidt, K. Shire, L. Sibley, G.M. Slavich, E. Viding, R. Wadman, H. Whalley, C. Worrell, G. Brooks, M.R. Broome, N. Campbell, N. Gardner, S. Harding, P. McGorry, V. Mondelli, C. Morgan, C. Nosarti, T. Porat, A. Rodney, D. Ryan, A. Woods, M. Zaman, R. Upthegrove, P. Dazzan · Institute of Psychiatry- Psychology & Neuroscience- King's College London, Department of Psychological Medicine, London, United Kingdom

2026 ECNP Congress

Introduction

Youth mental health research increasingly involves biological measures, and yet participation remains limited by cultural, structural, and methodological challenges, such as attitudes towards research, accessibility issues, complexity of procedures, and logistical or study design constraints. Despite growing recognition of the importance of integrating biological data, existing studies often rely on unrepresentative samples and face difficulties engaging and retaining diverse populations, especially those from minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Aims

As part of the “Co-producing a framework of guiding principles for Engaging representative and diverse cohorts of young peopLE in Biological ReseArch in menTal hEalth” (CELEBRATE) project, we aimed to identify consensus-based facilitators and barriers to meaningful youth involvement in biological mental health research, using a multi-stakeholder Delphi process, including academics, young people, parents/carers, teachers, and representatives from industry, ethics, charities, and regulatory/funding bodies.

Methods

We first gathered evidence from our scoping review and qualitative work (focus groups and workshops) co-produced with young people, parents/carers, and teachers, which highlighted key needs, themes, and actionable priorities related to youth participation in biological mental health research. We then conducted a Delphi-method-based process with a panel of 53 stakeholders with diverse expertise. Following structured discussions across stakeholder groups, we developed statements on facilitators and barriers, which were iteratively refined and rated anonymously using a 5-point Likert scale; consensus was predefined as ≥75% agreement. Final statements were organised into overarching thematic key principles to support interpretation and application. Young people from the youth expert working group (YEWG) contributed as co-researchers throughout the study, including in the final scoring of agreement.

Results

Thirty-five statements reached consensus (21 facilitators, 14 barriers). The strongest facilitators mapped onto the “priorities for successful participation and voice” and “engagement and communication” key principles, and included transparent and accessible communication, culturally and developmentally appropriate materials, flexible scheduling, and relationship-building approaches that foster trust, autonomy, and meaningful involvement. Stakeholders also emphasised the value of empowering young people through collaboration, ensuring they understand the purpose and impact of research, and involving their wider support networks, including families and schools. Barriers primarily mapped onto the “research environment and culture” principle, and included intimidating or unfamiliar research settings, disengaged or complex family contexts, underrepresentation of diverse groups, and structural constraints such as regulatory complexity, time constraints, and underfunded patient and public involvement activities. Cultural insensitivity, language barriers, and limited strategies for engaging underrepresented and minority groups were also highlighted as key obstacles to inclusive participation.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first multi-stakeholder consensus framework specifically developed to address youth involvement in biological mental health research. In partnership with young people, we identify key priorities to advance the field and inform more inclusive and representative research designs. By emphasising trust, communication, cultural competence, and flexibility, this framework provides actionable guidance for researchers, funders, and policymakers. Enabling facilitators and addressing barriers would support more meaningful, equitable, and sustainable youth participation, ultimately improving the quality, relevance, and impact of biological mental health research.

References

No references