Abstract:Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are typically designed to determine beneficial intervention effects. In addition, an important aspect of every trial is to collect data on any potential harmful effects, with the aim of ensuring that the benefit-risk balance is appropriate. The language used by trialists to describe these potential harmful effects is inconsistent. In pharmacological trials, researchers collect adverse events; when a causal relationship is suspected adverse events are further classified as adverse reactions. Academic researchers have moved to collectively refer to these as harm outcomes; the pharmaceutical industry refer to these events as safety outcomes. In trials of complex interventions, phrases such as unintended consequences or effects are used. With the inconsistent use of terminology by researchers and the potential benefits to be gained from harmonising communications, we sought public opinion on terminology used to describe harmful effects and how these outcomes are communicated in the scientific literature, as well as in public facing material on medications. Methods: We held two in-person public involvement meetings with public partners, in London and Aberdeen in 2023. Both meetings followed a pre-specified format. We provided a background to the topic including the information researchers collect on potential harms in clinical trials and shared examples on how this information gets presented in practice. We then discussed public partners' perspectives on terminology used and communication of intervention harm in academic journals and in public facing materials. A summary of these discussions and the main topics raised by public partners are presented. Results: Public partners endorsed the use of different terms for different situations, preferring the use of 'side-effect' across all contexts and reserving the use of 'harm' to indicate more severe events. Generally, public partners were happy with the type of information presented in public facing materials but discussions revealed that presentation of information on public NHS websites led to misconceptions about harm. Conclusion: This work provides a starting point on preferred terminology by patients and the public to describe potential harmful intervention effects. Whilst researchers have tried to seek agreement, public partners endorsed use of different terms for different situations. We highlight some key areas for improvement in public facing materials that are necessary to avoid miscommunication and incorrect perception of harm.

Perspective on 'Harm' in Personalized Medicine

Rejoinder to "Perspectives on `harm' in personalized medicine -- an alternative perspective"

Quantifying Harm

Precision and personalized medicine: What their current definition says and silences about the model of health they promote. Implication for the development of personalized health

When I use a word . . . Fictional drugs and the benefit to harm balance

Enabling responsible public genomics

The ethical challenges of personalized digital health

Do no harm: Balancing the costs and benefits of patient outcomes in health psychology research and practice

[Situation-precise medicine : Ethical comments on the debate around precision medicine]

Controlling Counterfactual Harm in Decision Support Systems Based on Prediction Sets

Public perspective on potential treatment intervention harm in clinical trials-terminology and communication

Systematic decision frameworks for the socially responsible use of precision medicine

Navigating the 'moral hazard' argument in synthetic biology's application

Balancing Act: Precision Medicine and National Security

Not in my AI: Moral engagement and disengagement in health care AI development

Great Future or Greedy Venture: Precision Medicine Needs Philosophy

Persons and their Brains: Life, Death, and Lessened Humanity

How We Define Harm Impacts Data Annotations: Explaining How Annotators Distinguish Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic Comments

A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI

Patients' perspectives related to ethical issues and risks in precision medicine: a systematic review

Morality in Our Mind and Across Cultures and Politics