The COVID-19 pandemic has presented profound disruptions to young people at a critical period of psychosocial development. The current study aimed to explore the perceived negative and positive impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people's mental health and wellbeing across a spectrum of clinical needs. A cross-sectional online survey including both quantitative and qualitative responses captured positive and negative impacts of COVID-19 across 593 young people with and without mental health care needs. Findings revealed high levels of clinical depression (48%), anxiety (51%), and loneliness in both samples. Approximately 75% of young people in primary mental health care services, and over 80% in the general population, reported a negative impact on work, non-work activities and mental health and wellbeing. Open-ended responses reflected positive impacts in the domains of greater capacity for self-care and reflection due to the decreased pressures of daily life. Negative impacts reflected worsening mental health, disruptions to key developmental milestones regarding relationships with self and others, and limited capacity for self-care. Together, these data highlight the critical need for early intervention support for the psychosocial impacts experienced by young people due to the pandemic, particularly among those with existing mental health care needs.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly recognized as a potential solution to address mental health service challenges by automating tasks and providing new forms of support. Objective: This study is the first in a series which aims to estimate the current rates of AI technology use as well as perceived benefits, harms, and risks experienced by community members (CMs) and mental health professionals (MHPs). Methods: This study involved 2 web-based surveys conducted in Australia. The surveys collected data on demographics, technology comfort, attitudes toward AI, specific AI use cases, and experiences of benefits and harms from AI use. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and thematic analysis of open-ended responses were conducted. Results: The final sample consisted of 107 CMs and 86 MHPs. General attitudes toward AI varied, with CMs reporting neutral and MHPs reporting more positive attitudes. Regarding AI usage, 28% (30/108) of CMs used AI, primarily for quick support (18/30, 60%) and as a personal therapist (14/30, 47%). Among MHPs, 43% (37/86) used AI; mostly for research (24/37, 65%) and report writing (20/37, 54%). While the majority found AI to be generally beneficial (23/30, 77% of CMs and 34/37, 92% of MHPs), specific harms and concerns were experienced by 47% (14/30) of CMs and 51% (19/37) of MHPs. There was an equal mix of positive and negative sentiment toward the future of AI in mental health care in open feedback. Conclusions: Commercial AI tools are increasingly being used by CMs and MHPs. Respondents believe AI will offer future advantages for mental health care in terms of accessibility, cost reduction, personalization, and work efficiency. However, they were equally concerned about reducing human connection, ethics, privacy and regulation, medical errors, potential for misuse, and data security. Despite the immense potential, integration into mental health systems must be approached with caution, addressing legal and ethical concerns while developing safeguards to mitigate potential harms. Future surveys are planned to track use and acceptability of AI and associated issues over time.

Young people may be particularly vulnerable to the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and may also be more likely to use social media at this time. This study aimed to explore young people’s mental health and social media use during the COVID-19 pandemic and examined their use of social media to seek and provide support for suicidal thoughts and self-harm during this period. Young people aged 16–25 (n = 371, M = 21.1) from the general population in Australia completed an anonymous, cross-sectional online survey advertised on social media from June to October 2020. Participants reported high levels of psychological distress, with over 40% reporting severe levels of anxiety and depression, and those with a mental health diagnosis were more likely to perceive the pandemic to have had a negative impact on their mental health. Gender-diverse participants appeared the most negatively impacted. Social media use was high, with 96% reporting use at least once a day, and two-thirds reporting an increase in social media use since the start of the pandemic. One-third had used social media to seek support for suicidal thoughts or self-harm, and half had used it to support another person. This study adds to a growing literature suggesting social media can provide an opportunity to support young people experiencing psychological distress and suicide risk. Uniquely, this study points to the utility of using social media for this purpose during high-risk periods such as pandemics, where access to face-to-face support may be limited. To promote the quality and safety of support provided on social media, resources for help-seekers and help-givers should be developed and disseminated. Social media companies must consider the vulnerability of some users during pandemics and do what they can to promote wellbeing and safety.

Background: There is currently an increased interest in and acceptance of technology-enabled mental health care. To adequately harness this opportunity, it is critical that the design and development of digital mental health technologies be informed by the needs and preferences of end users. Despite young people and clinicians being the predominant users of such technologies, few studies have examined their perspectives on different digital mental health technologies. Objective: This study aims to understand the technologies that young people have access to and use in their everyday lives and what applications of these technologies they are interested in to support their mental health. The study also explores the technologies that youth mental health clinicians currently use within their practice and what applications of these technologies they are interested in to support their clients’ mental health. Methods: Youth mental health service users (aged 12-25 years) from both primary and specialist services, young people from the general population (aged 16-25 years), and youth mental health clinicians completed a web-based survey exploring technology ownership, use of, and interest levels in using different digital interventions to support their mental health or that of their clients. Results: A total of 588 young people and 73 youth mental health clinicians completed the survey. Smartphone ownership or private access among young people within mental health services and the general population was universal (611/617, 99%), with high levels of access to computers and social media. Youth technology use was frequent, with 63.3% (387/611) using smartphones several times an hour. Clinicians reported using smartphones (61/76, 80%) and video chat (69/76, 91%) commonly in clinical practice and found them to be helpful. Approximately 50% (296/609) of the young people used mental health apps, which was significantly less than the clinicians (χ23=28.8, n=670; P<.001). Similarly, clinicians were significantly more interested in using technology for mental health support than young people (H3=55.90; P<.001), with 100% (73/73) of clinicians being at least slightly interested in technology to support mental health compared with 88% (520/591) of young people. Follow-up tests revealed no difference in interest between young people from the general population, primary mental health services, and specialist mental health services (all P>.23). Young people were most interested in web-based self-help, mobile self-help, and blended therapy. Conclusions: Technology access is pervasive among young people within and outside of youth mental health services; clinicians are already using technology to support clinical care, and there is widespread interest in digital mental health technologies among these groups of end users. These findings provide important insights into the perspectives of young people and clinicians regarding the value of digital mental health interventions in supporting youth mental health.

Background: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) involves completing multiple surveys over time in daily life, capturing in-the-moment experiences in real-world contexts. EMA use in psychosis studies has surged over several decades. To critically examine EMA use in psychosis research and assist future researchers in designing new EMA studies, this systematic review aimed to summarize the methodological approaches used for positive symptoms in psychosis populations and evaluate feasibility with a focus on completion rates. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Embase databases using search terms related to EMA and psychosis was conducted. Excluding duplicate samples, a meta-analysis was conducted of EMA survey completion rates and meta-regression to examine predictors of completion. Results: Sixty-eight studies were included in the review. Characteristics and reporting of EMA methodologies were variable across studies. The meta-mean EMA survey completion computed from the 39 unique studies that reported a mean completion rate was 67.15% (95% CI = 62.3, 71.9), with an average of 86.25% of the sample meeting a one-third EMA completion criterion. No significant predictors of completion were found in the meta-regression. A variety of EMA items were used to measure psychotic experiences, of which few were validated. Conclusions: EMA methods have been widely applied in psychosis studies using a range of protocols. Completion rates are high, providing clear evidence of feasibility in psychosis populations. Recommendations for reporting in future studies are provided.