One in ten children in the UK are affected by a mental health problem, causing significant distress to them and their families. Where these problems endure, they can hold children back from reaching their potential in school and the workplace, and from experiencing good physical and mental health into adulthood. Financially, the personal cost of mental illness is £41.8 billion per year in England. In light of this burden to children, families, and society, there is a pressing need for a pathway that can prevent mental health problems as early as possible. We now know that many of the factors that shape risk and resilience to mental health problems have their roots in the first years of life. Children who start off more vulnerable can go on to develop initial difficulties, which can then progress into more established problems. Developing better ways to identify which children and families are likely to benefit from support would help professionals to work with families to take a proactive approach early on. By supporting families to provide responsive, consistent care, we can help to build a strong foundation for mental health. Doing this in the first years of life, when children's development is especially responsive to their early experiences, relationships, and environment, could unlock huge potential to shape the course of children's long-term mental health. Research also suggests that investing early makes economic sense as children are less likely to need more intensive supports later on in life. This promise of a strong start in life has made children's first 1001 days a global health priority, as reflected in the recent World Health Organisation 'Nurturing Care' framework for early childhood development. Yet the insights we have from decades of research in child development have not translated into the public health strategies we need to promote early mental health in the UK. There are two critical factors underlying this gap. Firstly, we lack a way to identify early risk and resilience for mental health problems in very young children that is quick, effective and acceptable to families and professionals. Secondly, early childhood programmes that show promise in preventing problems when they are tested in controlled research studies typically fail to show the same success when they are delivered in real-world services. Although these programmes have been carefully developed they are often too complicated and expensive to deliver at scale. This fellowship will use cutting-edge techniques in epidemiology and data science to develop a tool to identify early mental health needs in very young children and a pathway for more personalised supports. It will bring together the best evidence available from previous studies of early interventions so we can identify which practices and strategies in these programmes tend to be most effective. Stripping these programmes back to their most important building blocks will allow us to work together with families and professionals to redesign how they are delivered so they fit better into family life, respond to families' needs and priorities, and are feasible and practical to deliver. This will be done by testing different approaches out quickly, figuring out what does and doesn't work, and adapting the approach based on this learning. We will do this in the UK as well as undertaking initial piloting in South Africa to ensure the principles and approaches we develop are flexible and can be adapted appropriately to different resource and cultural contexts. The ultimate goal of this research is to co-develop a flexible prevention pathway for early mental health problems that is relevant to the challenges facing families and communities and is responsive to the needs of family life and the services in which they are delivered. This research has the potential to provide the breakthrough impacts needed to change the course of children's mental health.

The Neuromod+ network will represent UK research, industry, clinical and patient communities, working together to address the challenge of minimally invasive treatments for brain disorders. Increasingly, people suffer from debilitating and intractable neurological conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases and mental health disorders. Neurotechnology is playing an increasingly important part in solving these problems, leading to recent bioelectronic treatments for depression and dementia. However, the invasiveness of existing approaches limits their overall impact. Neuromod+ will bring together neurotechnology stakeholders to focus on the co-creation of next generation, minimally invasive brain stimulation technologies. The network will focus on transformative research, new collaborations, and facilitating responsible innovation, partnering with bioethicists and policy makers. As broadening the accessibility of brain modification technology my lead to unintended consequences, considering the ethical and societal implications of these technological development is of the utmost importance, and thus we will build in bioethics research as a core network activity. The activities of NEUROMOD+ will have global impact, consolidating the growing role of UK neurotechnology sector.

Within almost every discipline related to the digital economy, there are critical and emerging issues around humans and the data they generate either directly, or as a byproduct of their endeavours. Equally, the data economy has stimulated a range of initiatives responses within each of the three sectors (public, private and third), as well as a broad portfolio of research across relevant disciplines. However, while such important work is ongoing, such these efforts are often disparate and tend not to feed directly back into the science of data-driven systems itself. There is an urgent need to guide the realisation of system design principles that are productive, and yet fit with the ethics and values acceptable to wider society. Those who are expert in development of the systems, algorithms and analytics that raise such issues face challenging culture gaps: firstly, with regard to those who are expert in areas such as the arts and humanities, and secondly with regard to those who are inexpert in technology but who are increasingly impacted by it in their everyday lives. Core to these divisions are issues such as a lack of social understanding of the technical capabilities of data-driven systems, inconsistency of research and development effort across sectors and disciplines, and tensions between industrial, societal and academic drivers, and human needs. Such tensions are visible in several domains, though few as pointedly critical as health. One need only look at NHS' efforts to protect individuals' medical records, in contrast to contrasted against the corporate monetization of DNA samples, as individuals take advantage of advances in low-cost mobile self-monitoring and diagnosiseek low cost solutions to their health-managements. Here, state, corporate and individual-level drivers create inconsistent approaches to the management and value of data. It is time to draw together, consolidate and formalise our efforts across disciplines. We must now seek to structure further endeavour, while considering how new and emerging systems are realised, received and responded to-not just within the bounds of the DE but cross-sector, i.e. within the range of organisations and communities that reflect and support daily human activity and concern. At a sectoral level, industry has often focused narrowly on either corporate monetisation of data from individuals, or individuals' efficiency and short-term optimisation of personal metrics (e.g. the 'quantified self'). Market pressures mean that technical advances are increasingly implemented before social and cultural effects can be determined. This means, however, that data-intensive systems to support long term social, cultural and creative benefits are rare. At the same time, academic research has often focused on questions of interest more to itself than to other sectors. Academic work with public and third sector organisations has been fragmented, with interactions often weighted in favour of shorter term innovation cycles rather than longer term social needs. Such challenges, divergences and tensions lead to duplications, contradictions, and unproductive effort. This is the problem space within which we operate. Our network a holistic and inclusive network approach, sensitive to the socially situated nature of such systems. To achieve this we will (a) develop and sustain a collaborative, cross-sectoral community under the banner of Human Data Interaction, (b) develop a portfolio of system design projects addressing underexplored aspects of the DE (c) create cross-sectoral interdisciplinary synthesis of research under the HDI banner (d) conceptually develop and flesh-out the HDI framework, (e) create a suite of policy and public-facing case studies, papers, prototypes and educational materials, and (f) develop a set of core guidelines intended to inform the design of human-facing data-driven systems.

Currently in the UK, it is estimated that over 2.5 million of neurodiverse adults have not received a diagnosis and therefore struggle to access care. The most common neurodevelopmental conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism (ASD), affect 5% and 1% of children and adults in the UK - on average one child per classroom. Nowadays, the understanding of autism and ADHD has greatly increase. However, a lot of adults and children have not received a diagnosis. Within the UK healthcare system, without a diagnosis, these patients cannot access the care they need. Having ADHD or autism often negatively impacts many aspects of life such as employment, relationship, or school. Studies have shown that adults with undiagnosed and untreated ASD/ADHD are more likely to have educational problems, mental health issues, depression and anxiety, are more likely to commit crimes and abuse substances, are more likely to divorce, be unemployed or commit suicide. These aspects are worse when ASD/ADHD is not diagnosed but can be reduced with early identification and effective support. Diagnosing ASD/ADHD as early as possible is of utmost importance in reducing some of these long terms risks for adults living with these conditions. Recent governmental reports have highlighted the importance of having access to diagnosis and care for these conditions. In order to successfully address these priorities, it is important that research first identifies the costs of living with undiagnosed ASD/ADHD. Previous studies which have looked into the cost and impact of undiagnosed mental health on the individuals, society and economy have shown that the cost of not diagnosing and treating mental health issues was higher than the cost of running services for these issues. This led to the creation of a national NHS service (IAPT), a service helping adults with mental health issues. No research to date has been done on the cost of undiagnosed ASD/ADHD. This new study will highlight the economic and societal cost of undiagnosed ASD/ADHD in order to give policy makers and healthcare providers the necessary information to justify funding appropriate services. Most specifically, the project will answer two questions: 1. What are the long-term risks and impacts (for instance: higher rate of divorce, substance abuse, unemployment) associated with undiagnosed ASD/ADHD? 2. What are the individual, societal and economic costs of these associated risks? To answer these questions, first a literature review of published science articles will summarise the studies which looked into the risks associated with undiagnosed ASD/ADHD. Then I will conduct questionnaires and interviews with adults with ASD/ADHD to see whether the risks highlighted in the literature review reflect real life struggles. These two studies will create a comprehensive summary of the risks associated with undiagnosed ASD/ADHD. Once this summary is completed, an economic evaluation of the costs of these risks will be conducted with undiagnosed adults. In order to understand what these costs mean, they will be compared to three groups, one groups of adults diagnosed with ASD/ADHD in childhood, one group of adults diagnosed in childhood and one group of adults diagnosed in adulthood. This will allow us to establish the true cost of the impact of receiving a diagnosis as early as possible. A group of adults with ASD/ADHD will feedback on all the different tasks of this project to ensure it represents real-life experiences. Many people argue that having conditions such as ASD/ADHD cost a lot more to society than neurotypical individuals (for example, extra support in class). However, this study argues that the cost of not identifying individuals with such difficulties, is likely to cost more in the long term (for example while extra support in class has a cost, school underachievement and unemployment will cost much more to an individual and society in the long run).

Promoting improved understanding of how children's daily lives are influenced by the digital world that now surrounds them and how they experience family, peer and school life as a result represents a substantial challenge and opportunity relative to facilitating positive mental health and development for children and young people. Historically, researchers have emphasised the role of supportive parenting and positive school experiences (including peer relationships) as primary social environmental influences on children's mental health, with most interventions targeting family and school-based influences aimed at remediating poor mental health outcomes for children and young people. It is increasingly recognised that the digital environment constitutes a new dimension or common denominator to these traditional agencies of socialisation influence on children's mental health. Yet, little progress has been made in equipping parents, teachers and the professional agencies that work with families and schools with new knowledge that harnesses potential strengths while offering protection from substantial risks posed to children by the digital world. How do we equip parents, teachers, practitioners, policy makers and youth themselves with information, support and resources that promotes positive mental health in a contemporary (and future) digital age? Addressing this core challenge represents the primary objective of our multi-disciplinary e-Nurture network. While significant advances have been made in relation to highlighting and understanding the genetic and biological underpinnings of poor mental health and mental health disorders in recent years, it is recognised that the social environments children experience and interact with remain a substantial influence on their positive and negative mental health trajectories (even when genetic factors are considered). Three primary areas of social environmental influence on children's mental health have dominated past research and practice in this area. First, family socialisation processes, specifically parenting practices are recognised as a substantive influence on children's mental health. Second, peer influences are noted as an important influence on children's mental health. Third, school-based factors are recognised as a further influence on children's mental health and development. Increasingly, the digital environment is recognised as a factor that both infuses traditional agencies of socialisation for children and that can influence children directly. Policy makers have recently directed significant attention to the prevalence rates and support needs among children and young people who experience mental health problems. The digital environment and its potential for positive and negative influences on children's well-being, mental health and development has also received substantial research, policy and media attention. Building on this policy platform, the primary objectives of our network are to (1) explore how the digital environment has changed the ways in which children experience and interact with family, school and peer-based influences and what these changes mean for children's mental health, (2) identify how we can recognise and disentangle digital risks from opportunities when working with families, schools and professional agencies in developing intervention programmes to improve mental health outcomes for children and young people, and (3) identify how we effectively incorporate and disseminate this new knowledge to engage present and future practice models and the design and development of digital platforms and interventions aimed at promoting mental health and reducing negative mental health trajectories for young people. The network will engage a collaborative, cross sectoral approach to facilitating impacts by directly engaging academic, charity, industry, policy and front-line beneficiaries (e.g. families, parents, schools, teachers, children and young people).