Future of Psychiatry Day: A Young Person’s Perspective, by Arianna Dotsey

On the 8th of July, the University of Oxford’s Department of Psychiatry hosted the Future of Psychiatry Day at the Mathematical Institute, as part of celebrations marking the Warneford Hospital’s 200th anniversary. The event brought together researchers, healthcare professionals, people with lived experience and young people to explore some of the key questions shaping the future of psychiatry.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Tell us about your first impressions of the event, what you saw and felt.

Honestly, my first impressions of the event were very positive. I remember at the start as I walked through the doors, I could immediately tell that the atmosphere throughout the day was going to be engaging. Because even though it was still early in the morning, the venue was already full of energy, with people mingling over posters and refreshments and getting ready for the day ahead.

What also caught my attention was the range of perspectives already present in the room. There were researchers and professionals alongside advocates and people with lived experience, and as a YPAG member, I also felt that I was there in some way representing a young person’s perspective, alongside Zed, another YPAG member. I really liked seeing all of these perspectives brought together, particularly around such a wide range of issues in psychiatry.

2. What did you think of the lectures/speeches? Was there any particular highlight? If so, what did you like about it?

I really enjoyed the wide variety of lectures and speeches throughout the day. There were so many great speakers presenting their research that I could probably write a whole blog post/essey about them alone, so it is difficult to choose just a few highlights. One that particularly stood out to me was Dr Lade Smith CBE’s presentation on the systemic evolution of mental health services, structural inequalities and the importance of early intervention.

One point from her presentation that particularly stayed with me was the idea that researchers and healthcare professionals may need to make stronger economic arguments when trying to get policymakers to prioritise and fund mental health services, rather than focusing only on the health benefits. For example, if you can show that investing in mental health can support people to remain healthier and more active within the workforce, which in turn contributes to a stronger economy, policymakers may be more inclined to take notice. Obviously, health should be reason enough to invest in people’s wellbeing, but unfortunately, economic impact can carry a lot of weight when it comes to policy decisions. I found this perspective really interesting for the reason being that it made me think about how research sometimes needs to be communicated differently depending on the audience. If policymakers are thinking about the economic impact of an issue, showing how investment in mental health can also benefit the wider economy may help bring greater attention to the mental health crisis.

There were so many other talks that I found interesting throughout the day, and I also really valued hearing directly from people with lived experience. Hearing those perspectives alongside the research added something different to the presentations and brought the focus back to the people behind the conditions and services being discussed.

3. How did you find the Dragon’s Den panel? Who stuck out for you? Who would you have picked to win, perhaps overall if you can’t remember from each of the three categories?

The Dragon’s Den panel was probably one of the harder parts of the day for me to choose a favourite from, because I thought all the presenters did really well and each researcher brought something different to the panel. I really enjoyed the other presentations too, but I am going to be a bit biased and say that I enjoyed Mario Stepanik’s presentation a bit more, from the first Fast Talk, “Predicting the Future: Biomarkers, Models and Mathematics”. If I had to pick someone, I probably would have wanted him to win. I found the use of computational neuroscience and data science to better understand psychiatric conditions particularly interesting. It was also fascinating to see how mathematical and computational approaches can be used to explore what is happening across the brain, especially when thinking about the future of psychiatric medicine.

4. What did you think of the debate? I know you had some interesting thoughts on AI, so we’d love to hear what those were!

I really enjoyed the debate. I think it was actually probably one of my favourite parts of the day, since I enjoy listening to people debate ideas about a wide range of topics, especially when it is done professionally and people can challenge each other’s views without it becoming personal, which I felt was done really well. The topic itself was also something I already found interesting: “This house believes the future of psychiatry does not require psychiatrists”, psychiatry and psychiatrists role in shapng the future od mentak health

Personally, I found myself leaning towards humans remaining at the centre of psychiatric care rather than AI. I can understand why AI is appealing since, for example, healthcare professionals can have biases, are also prone to making mistakes and are at high risk of constantly experiencing compassion fatigue, which can negatively impact the care they provide to patients. I suppose AI could potentially be used to help mitigate some of these issues, but at the same time I was thinking that AI is trained using human-generated data, which can already contain biases and errors. And that made me question whether, if psychiatric care started relying heavily on AI, we could end up reinforcing the biases we are trying to reduce rather than actively identifying and addressing them.

Another issue I thought about during the debate was accountability, which I do believe was mentioned at some point during the debate by the team against AI.

If a psychiatrist makes a mistake, for instance, there are systems in place to establish responsibility, but with AI it becomes less straightforward, because if an AI system recommended the wrong treatment to a patient and they were seriously harmed as a result, who would ultimately be responsible? Would it be the developer who created it, the people who approved its use, the healthcare system, such as the NHS, if it had approved the tool, or the healthcare professional using it?

And if AI is being used alongside a psychiatrist, how much responsibility would sit with the psychiatrist? I know the psychiatrist would have the final say because they are the one who has undergone psychiatric training, but if they are using an AI tool in a professional setting, that tool has presumably already been approved and gone through checks. They may therefore reasonably trust that the tool is safe to use. I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions around where responsibility would ultimately sit.

I also found myself thinking about the environmental impact of AI when I was discussing it with my fellow YPAG attendee and other researchers at the event. AI relies on data centres that require significant amounts of energy and resources, which can have wider environmental consequences. I know that this is not an issue unique to AI since a lot of current technology is helping patients while also having an environmental impact. Still, I think it raises an interesting question because if technology is being developed to improve people’s health, but its wider environmental impact could potentially affect people’s health, where does that leave us?

You could apply a similar argument to almost any technology. A phone, for example, can have negative effects on your health if it contributes to excessive use or constant online use, while also being a tool for monitoring your health or accessing apps that help you live a healthier life.

I think that is what makes discussions around AI so interesting. There are so many different questions surrounding its use in psychiatric care and healthcare more generally that you could probably spend hours discussing them.

So for now, I am still on the side of psychiatrists remaining at the centre of psychiatric care. At the same time, I do see a future where psychiatrists use AI alongside their own expertise because it would be a bit naive to say that the future will only involve psychiatrists delivering care without AI/new technology, especially when people are already turning to AI to discuss their mental health and psychiatric conditions. So Psychiatry will have to adapt to that eventually, but I don’t think AI will replace psychiatrists, and I also don’t think it will disappear from psychiatric care.

5. Were there any other highlights, such as meeting researchers or looking at posters?

Yes, there were. Another highlight was getting to meet the researchers behind the posters displayed across the venue and hearing them explain their study designs and why they were doing the research. It really showed that their research was driven by curiosity and the desire to improve care, which, like, obviously is a very good thing.

6. Why do you think it is important for young people to attend and have a voice at this sort of event?

I think it is really important for young people to attend and have a voice at events like this. Researchers bring their expertise, while young people bring lived experience and perspectives that may not be captured through research alone. Often, young people are only involved at the testing stage or not at all, which can limit how much they can actually contribute. Having them involved earlier gives researchers the chance to hear those perspectives and use them to improve their work. I also think it is valuable for young people to meet the researchers working on issues that directly affect their health.

7. How does the event fit into the work with NeurOx YPAG? Did you make any connections to that work, or have any reflections on the links between the YPAG and the research on show?

I could see a clear connection with the work we do at YPAG. A big part of YPAG is creating a space where young people can openly share their opinions and contribute to research, helping researchers think about whether their approaches will actually work for the young people they are intended to reach.

I felt that same co-collaborative spirit at the event. Having myself and another YPAG member there brought a young person’s perspective, while people with lived experience could share their own experiences directly with researchers. So it created an environment where researchers could explain their work and hear perspectives that could potentially make them think differently about their research. For me, that felt very similar to what YPAG does.

8. What would you like to see at future events?

I would like to see more of this co-collaborative approach at future events. I really liked that the conference brought together researchers, people with lived experience and young people, including us YPAG members representing young people’s perspectives. There was a nice balance between these different perspectives, which made the event feel much more engaging. I would really like to see more conferences create that kind of space.