The SCAMP Research Challenge programme: Co-developing research with young people for young people.

In the modern world, the mental well-being of teenagers is a pressing concern for parents, teachers, and doctors alike. Adolescence is a time of profound change, where the brain is still developing and young people are navigating complex social landscapes. For decades, scientists have tried to understand what shapes a young person's mind, from the air they breathe to the screens they stare at. A major challenge in this field has been how to study teenagers effectively. Traditional research often treats young people as passive subjects, simply providing data while adults design the questions and interpret the answers. However, experts increasingly believe that to truly understand youth mental health, researchers must involve young people as active partners. This approach, known as public and participant involvement, suggests that when young people help shape the research, the results become more relevant, ethical, and impactful. The question remains, however, whether this collaborative model can work on a large scale, not just in small advisory groups, but as a core engine for gathering data and generating new scientific discoveries.

A team of researchers at Imperial College London set out to test this idea through a program called the SCAMP Research Challenge. They worked within the Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones, which is the world's largest study tracking how mobile phone use affects the minds and health of teenagers. After the pandemic made it difficult to recruit students through traditional methods, the researchers needed a new way to connect with schools. They designed a year-long program where secondary school students in London were not just asked to fill out surveys, but were invited to become co-researchers. The program had four clear goals: to recruit more students into the study, to help run the data collection sessions within schools, to train students to develop their own research questions using the study's existing data, and to work with them to turn those questions into real projects.

The program rolled out over two academic years, involving nineteen secondary schools across Greater London. In the first year, twelve schools participated fully, while in the second year, fifteen schools joined, with some opting to focus only on the data collection part. The process began with a kick-off session where researchers explained the study and trained student teams on how to organize recruitment and data collection. These student teams, consisting of up to eight peers from each school, then took the lead. They designed their own campaigns to encourage other students to sign up, using school assemblies and digital materials. They helped organize the logistics for the day when researchers came to collect data, which included online questionnaires about health and technology use, and optional biological samples like saliva. In return for their participation, students received small vouchers, but the student team members received no money for their research work; instead, they were motivated by the opportunity to learn, gain skills, and have their work recognized.

The results of this peer-led approach were striking. Across the two years, the student teams successfully recruited 1,982 new participants into the study. This number was achieved in a shorter timeframe than previous recruitment efforts led solely by researchers. The student-led method proved highly effective because the recruiters were peers who understood the school culture and could speak the same language as their classmates. The data collection sessions ran smoothly, with students helping to manage the flow of participants and even collecting some physical measurements under supervision. Beyond recruitment, the program fostered a deep level of engagement. Seven research projects were developed by the student teams, covering topics they cared about, such as the link between social media scrolling and emotion recognition, the relationship between gaming and cognitive skills, and how digital technology use might affect physical health markers like body mass index.

These student-led projects did not stop at the proposal stage. Selected teams worked closely with university researchers to refine their ideas, learn how to search for existing scientific literature, and plan how to analyze data. While the final statistical analysis was performed by the researchers due to technical constraints, the students were involved in every step of the planning and interpretation. Three projects from the first year and four from the second were chosen to move forward, with some already published or prepared for publication in academic journals. The program also created a lasting impact on the students themselves. Feedback indicated that participants felt more confident, improved their communication and teamwork skills, and gained a clearer understanding of potential career paths in science and medicine. Several students continued their involvement with the study, joining advisory groups or taking on work experience roles.

The success of the SCAMP Research Challenge suggests that embedding young people as active partners in research is not only possible but highly beneficial. It demonstrated that when students are given real responsibility, they can drive recruitment and data collection more efficiently than external researchers alone. The program also highlighted the importance of reciprocity; schools and students were more willing to engage when the research offered tangible benefits, such as skill development and recognition, rather than just asking for their time. However, the researchers noted that the approach was not without challenges. Some schools faced logistical hurdles, and the method of selecting student teams through teacher nominations sometimes risked missing out on students who might have been interested but were not well-known to their teachers. Future iterations of the program aim to make recruitment more transparent and inclusive to ensure all students have an equal chance to participate.

Ultimately, this work shows that the gap between academic research and the real world can be bridged by trusting young people to be co-creators. By moving beyond the role of passive subjects, the program empowered teenagers to shape the questions being asked about their own lives and to contribute directly to the answers. The findings suggest that this model of co-production can strengthen scientific outcomes while simultaneously building the next generation of researchers and informed citizens. It offers a scalable way to improve the relevance and impact of public health research, proving that when young people are treated as partners, the science becomes better, and the participants leave with more than just a survey form in their hands.