Abstract:Objective Randomised controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behaviour change interventions that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health e.g., healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from behaviour change interventions; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms. Study design and methods A scoping review was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were searched. Reference list checking and citation searching were performed. Articles were included if they discussed: i) interventions that aimed to modify behaviour; ii) categories or mechanisms of harms; iii) methods or recommendations for recording harms. All research designs were included. One reviewer reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; queries were checked with another reviewer. Data was extracted and synthesised descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarise the review findings. Harms described from specific behaviour change interventions were identified, and examples were selected and summarised. Results The review included 37 articles. 19/37 articles contributed to a thematic review. Three articles described categories of harms, categories of harm included: Physical, Psychological, Group and Social interactions, Cultural, Equity, Opportunity Cost, Environmental and Economic. Seven articles included mechanisms or underlying factors for harms including feelings of failure leading to shame or stigma, and group interventions enabling knowledge exchange on unhealthy behaviours. Twelve articles provided recommendations for recording harms, including taking a proportionate approach by focusing on the most plausible and important harms, collecting different perspectives on whether harms had occurred (e.g., caregivers and family members) and using qualitative research methods to identify harms. One article described a three-step method to identify plausible harms from an intervention, and 6 articles supported aspects of the method. 18/37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, e.g., a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future. Conclusion Behaviour change interventions can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in behaviour change interventions for inclusion in forthcoming guidance.

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomised trials

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials

The Reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials of Hypertension Using the CONSORT Criteria for Harm Reporting

Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration

A proposal for using benefit-risk methods to improve the prominence of adverse event results when reporting trials

The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration

Recommendations on recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

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

Recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions: a scoping review and map of the evidence

Transparency Matters: Assessing Harms Reporting Compliance in Randomized Controlled Trials Underpinning the AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials

Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement

Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

Harms reporting in randomized controlled trials underpinning the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for glenohumeral osteoarthritis

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

Recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions: a qualitative study of UK clinical trials units and NIHR trial investigators

Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration

Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications