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.

When describing harms and benefits to potential trial participants, participant information leaflets are inadequate

Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation

Patient Information Leaflets about Cancer Trials Are Too Complicated, Finds Study.

Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers

Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study

Adequate information about clinical trial results must be given to participants

A pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: feasibility, approach, and results

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

"Uninformed consent" in clinical trials with cancer patients: A qualitative analysis of patients' and support persons' communication experiences and needs

Co-production of guidance and resources to implement principled participant information leaflets (PrinciPILs)

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

Retention strategies are routinely communicated to potential trial participants but often differ from what was planned in the trial protocol: an analysis of adult participant information leaflets and their corresponding protocols

Communicating Risks and Benefits in Informed Consent for Research: A Qualitative Study

The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study

Recommendations for developing accessible patient information leaflets for clinical trials to address English language literacy as a barrier to research participation

Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Randomized study of two different consent procedures on recall: a study within a digital alcohol intervention trial

Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials

A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: Implications for informed consent

Patients' perceptions and practices of informing relatives: a qualitative study within a randomised trial on healthcare-assisted risk disclosure