Being part of the CONNECT study is like stepping into an important moment in psychosis research. It’s one of the first projects of this scale exploring how digital technology might help us better understand experiences of psychosis, involving a large, motivated research team across six UK universities, the McPin Foundation, and many engaged service users. Even though the study focuses on digital tools, what stands out to me most is how deeply human the work is.
One thing that struck me straightaway was how the Sussex team genuinely puts individuals first. There is a real effort to see the person before the data. For example, I once joined a research assistant who was meeting a participant for technical support. The participant arrived over an hour late. Instead of frustration, what I saw was complete patience, gentleness, and understanding. It was a reminder that people experiencing psychosis might be especially vulnerable to emotional distress — and how important it is not to add to that. That moment captured what seems to be at the heart of CONNECT: valuing people, not rushing them.
This idea of valuing individuals extends not only to participants, but also to the researchers who stand behind the project. During weekly CONNECT meetings, for instance, the very first question asked is always about well-being: how everyone is feeling, whether they’re managing, and what support they might need. Before discussing any study procedures or data, the focus is on the people doing the work. This creates a supportive environment where researchers feel seen as individuals, and where care is modelled at every level — making it more natural to offer the same care to participants.
Only after checking in with each other do discussions move to participants — how they’re doing with their follow-ups, whether anyone needs additional support, how their emotional well-being has been recently — and then, only then, to administrative matters. This order itself says something important: CONNECT is built around people first, processes second. It reinforces the idea that the study is not just about collecting data, but about maintaining the well-being of everyone involved in generating it.
This value also shapes the qualitative interviews planned for the study. Participants are invited to speak about their experiences with the app and digital tools — what worked, what didn’t, and what could be improved. The focus on listening to individuals from different backgrounds and levels of engagement reinforces the idea that their voices are central, not secondary.
Another theme that has impressed me is how CONNECT challenges old stereotypes. There’s a persistent belief that people experiencing psychosis will avoid digital monitoring or distrust technology. Yet, in practice, we see the opposite: highly engaged participants who feel empowered by being able to choose what information they share. This shift only happens because research assistants and clinicians take time to explain things clearly: what is tracked, what isn’t (such as message content or phone conversations), and why each piece of information matters. Through a calm, honest dialogue, they break down fears and build trust.
And trust really matters here. Even the name “Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust” feels symbolically fitting. In a way, CONNECT mirrors this idea — creating connections between service users, clinicians, researchers, and digital tools. It’s not just about connecting people to technology; it’s about strengthening the relationships between all four groups so the study is built on openness, respect, and collaboration.
I’ve also seen the importance of genuine dialogue with clinicians. I once shadowed a research assistant giving a presentation to a community mental health team. Instead of a formal, overly serious briefing, it felt relaxed, interactive, and human. Clinicians were encouraged to speak freely, ask questions, and discuss potential referrals. The atmosphere was warm and approachable — proof that research doesn’t need to hide behind complicated terminology or a “serious face” to be meaningful. A simple, open conversation can build far stronger rapport.
Alongside this, I’ve become increasingly interested in how the study protocol itself reflects CONNECT’s emphasis on individuals. One of the study’s aims goes beyond predicting relapse at a group level — it focuses on developing an adaptive sampling approach that responds to each person’s own patterns. Rather than prompting everyone in the same way, it adjusts the timing and frequency of questionnaires based on how a person is doing, helping to offer more support when needed and reducing prompts when someone is stable. It’s a very human idea within a technical system: not overwhelming people, but meeting them where they are. And a small, funny detail that captures this perfectly — the protocol uses the word “individual” 62 times. It really shows where the heart of CONNECT lies.
Finally, even though CONNECT uses advanced machine learning, the project still comes back to people. Machine learning is powerful, but it exists because humans created it, and it only becomes useful when humans apply it thoughtfully. With such a large, dedicated research team and so many participants, it becomes clear that even a digital study is fundamentally a human one. Technology supports the work, but human insight, empathy, and care guide it.
To other placement students and research assistants across CONNECT:
If you’d like to share your own observations from your day-to-day work — the small moments, the challenges, the surprises — please do. It would be fascinating to see the similarities and differences across sites, and it might help us build an even richer understanding of what CONNECT looks like in practice.