Adverse event recording failed to reflect potential harms: a review of trial protocols of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions

Developing a process for assessing the safety of a digital mental health intervention and gaining regulatory approval: a case study and academic's guide

BACKGROUND

The field of digital mental health has followed an exponential growth trajectory in recent years. While the evidence base has increased significantly, its adoption within health and care services has been slowed by several challenges, including a lack of knowledge from researchers regarding how to navigate the pathway for mandatory regulatory approval. This paper details the steps that a team must take to achieve the required approvals to carry out a research study using a novel digital mental health intervention. We used a randomised controlled trial of a digital mental health intervention called STOP (Successful Treatment of Paranoia) as a worked example.

METHODS

The methods section explains the two main objectives that are required to achieve regulatory approval (MHRA Notification of No Objection) and the detailed steps involved within each, as carried out for the STOP trial. First, the existing safety of digital mental health interventions must be demonstrated. This can refer to literature reviews, any feasibility/pilot safety data, and requires a risk management plan. Second, a detailed plan to further evaluate the safety of the digital mental health intervention is needed. As part of this we describe the STOP study's development of a framework for categorising adverse events and based on this framework, a tool to collect adverse event data.

RESULTS

We present literature review results, safety-related feasibility study findings and the full risk management plan for STOP, which addressed 26 possible hazards, and included the 6-point scales developed to quantify the probability and severity of typical risks involved when a psychiatric population receives a digital intervention without the direct support of a therapist. We also present an Adverse Event Category Framework for Digital Therapeutic Devices and the Adverse Events Checklist-which assesses 15 different categories of adverse events-that was constructed from this and used in the STOP trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The example shared in this paper serves as a guide for academics and professionals working in the field of digital mental health. It provides insights into the safety assessment requirements of regulatory bodies when a clinical investigation of a digital mental health intervention is proposed. Methods, scales and tools that could easily be adapted for use in other similar research are presented, with the expectation that these will assist other researchers in the field seeking regulatory approval for digital mental health products.

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

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.

A framework for assessment of adverse events occurring in psychedelic-assisted therapies

OBJECTIVE

Despite considerable research examining the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted therapies (PATs) for treating psychiatric disorders, assessment of adverse events (AEs) in PAT research has lagged. Current AE reporting standards in PAT trials are poorly calibrated to features of PAT that distinguish it from other treatments, leaving many potential AEs unassessed.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group of experts involved in PAT pooled formally and informally documented AEs observed through research experience and published literature. This information was integrated with (a) current standards and practices for AE reporting in pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials and (b) published findings documenting post-acute dosing impacts of psychedelics on subjective states, meaning, and psychosocial health variables, to produce a set of AE constructs important to evaluate in PAT as well as recommended methods and time frames for their assessment and monitoring. Correspondence between identified potential AEs and current standards for AE assessment was examined, including the extent of coverage of identified AE constructs by 25 existing measures used in relevant research.

RESULTS

Fifty-four potential AE terms warranting systematized assessment in PAT were identified, defined, and categorized. Existing measures demonstrated substantial gaps in their coverage of identified AE constructs. Recommendations were developed for how to assess PAT AEs (including patient, clinician, and informant reports), and when to assess over preparation, dosing session, integration, and follow-up. Application of this framework is demonstrated in a preliminary assessment protocol (available in the supplement).

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment framework addresses the need to capture post-acute dosing AEs in PAT, accounting for its pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy components, as well as documented impacts of psychedelics on worldviews and spirituality.

Bridging the gap from medical to psychological safety assessment: consensus study in a digital mental health context

BACKGROUND

Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) that meet the definition of a medical device are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK. The MHRA uses procedures that were originally developed for pharmaceuticals to assess the safety of DMHIs. There is recognition that this may not be ideal, as is evident by an ongoing consultation for reform led by the MHRA and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to generate an experts' consensus on how the medical regulatory method used for assessing safety could best be adapted for DMHIs.

METHOD

An online Delphi study containing three rounds was conducted with an international panel of 20 experts with experience/knowledge in the field of UK digital mental health.

RESULTS

Sixty-four items were generated, of which 41 achieved consensus (64%). Consensus emerged around ten recommendations, falling into five main themes: Enhancing the quality of adverse events data in DMHIs; Re-defining serious adverse events for DMHIs; Reassessing short-term symptom deterioration in psychological interventions as a therapeutic risk; Maximising the benefit of the Yellow Card Scheme; and Developing a harmonised approach for assessing the safety of psychological interventions in general.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the recommendations provided by this consensus could improve the assessment of safety of DMHIs, making them more effective in detecting and mitigating risk.

A qualitative exploration of an autism-specific self-compassion program: The ASPAA

LAY ABSTRACT

Autistic people often struggle to find the right support for their mental health. We wanted to change that by trying a new approach to help autistic adults with their emotions and well-being. We focused on something called "self-compassion," which is a way of being kind and understanding toward ourselves. This approach has worked well for many people, but we didn't know if it would work for autistic individuals. We invited 39 autistic adults to join an online program that taught them about self-compassion. The program lasted 5 weeks and included educational materials, meditation exercises, and self-reflection activities. We asked the participants for feedback each week and at the end of the program. From their responses, we discovered four important things. First, self-compassion had a big positive impact on the well-being of autistic adults. Second, they faced some challenges during the program. Third, they saw self-compassion as a journey that takes time and practice. Finally, they described how they valued changes to help autistic people engage with the program. Our findings show that self-compassion can really help autistic adults. We learned about the benefits they experienced and the difficulties they faced. Most importantly, we found that personalized support is crucial for autistic individuals. By creating programs that consider their specific needs, we can improve their mental health and make their lives better.

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

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behavior change interventions (BCIs) that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health, for example, healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomized controlled trials of BCIs. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from BCIs; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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 (1) interventions that aimed to modify behavior, (2) categories or mechanisms of harms, and (3) 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 were extracted and synthesized descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarize the review findings. Harms described from specific BCIs were identified, and examples were selected and summarized.

RESULTS

The review included 37 articles. Nineteen of 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 behaviors. 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 (eg, 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 six articles supported aspects of the method. Eighteen of 37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, for example, a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future.

CONCLUSION

BCIs can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in BCIs for inclusion in forthcoming recommendations.

Measurement of Adverse Events in Studies of Digital Health Interventions for Psychosis: Guidance and Recommendations Based on a Literature Search and Framework Analysis of Standard Operating Procedures

BACKGROUND

Given the rapid expansion of research into digital health interventions (DHIs) for severe mental illness (SMI; eg, schizophrenia and other psychosis diagnoses), there is an emergent need for clear safety measures. Currently, measurement and reporting of adverse events (AEs) are inconsistent across studies. Therefore, an international network, iCharts, was assembled to systematically identify and refine a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for AE reporting in DHI studies for SMI.

DESIGN

The iCharts network comprised experts on DHIs for SMI from seven countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Pakistan, Australia, United States, and China) and various professional backgrounds. Following a literature search, SOPs of AEs were obtained from authors of relevant studies, and from grey literature.

RESULTS

A thorough framework analysis of SOPs (n = 32) identified commonalities for best practice for certain domains, along with significant gaps in others; particularly around the classification of AEs during trials, and the provision of training/supervision for research staff in measuring and reporting AEs. Several areas which could lead to the observed inconsistencies in AE reporting and handling were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The iCharts network developed best-practice guidelines and a practical resource for AE monitoring in DHI studies for psychosis, based on a systematic process which identified common features and evidence gaps. This work contributes to international efforts to standardize AE measurement and reporting in this emerging field, ensuring that safety aspects of DHIs for SMI are well-studied across the translational pathway, with monitoring systems set-up from the outset to support safe implementation in healthcare systems.

Adverse Events Reporting in Digital Interventions Evaluations for Psychosis: A Systematic Literature Search and Individual Level Content Analysis of Adverse Event Reports

BACKGROUND

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have significant potential to upscale treatment access to people experiencing psychosis but raise questions around patient safety. Adverse event (AE) monitoring is used to identify, record, and manage safety issues in clinical trials, but little is known about the specific content and context contained within extant AE reports. This study aimed to assess current AE reporting in DHIs.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic literature search was conducted by the iCharts network (representing academic, clinical, and experts by experience) to identify trials of DHIs in psychosis. Authors were invited to share AE reports recorded in their trials. A content analysis was conducted on the shared reports.

STUDY RESULTS

We identified 593 AE reports from 18 DHI evaluations, yielding 19 codes. Only 29 AEs (4.9% of total) were preidentified by those who shared AEs as being related to the intervention or trial procedures. While overall results support the safety of DHIs, DHIs were linked to mood problems and psychosis exacerbation in a few cases. Additionally, 27% of studies did not report information on relatedness for all or at least some AEs; 9.6% of AE reports were coded as unclear because it could not be determined what had happened to participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the safety of DHIs, but AEs must be routinely monitored and evaluated according to best practice. Individual-level analyses of AEs have merit to understand safety in this emerging field. Recommendations for best practice reporting in future studies are provided.

Development and content validity of EVAD: A novel tool for evaluating and classifying the severity of adverse events for psychotherapeutic clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Develop and obtain content validity of a new tool for Evaluating and Classifying the Severity of Adverse Events for Psychotherapeutic Clinical Trials (EVAD).

METHOD

Study of the development process of EVAD in four stages: (1) identify the domain and concept definition through a literature review, (2) instrument design, (3) expert judgment of the EVAD items through Gwent's concordance coefficient, and (4) applicability.

RESULTS

In the absence of a consistent conceptual framework of adverse events in psychotherapeutic clinical trials, we have developed a framework and defined it. We have designed EVAD items and their complementary tool for rating adverse events. Content validation by expert judges resulted in CVR = 1.0 for each item and CVI = 0.79 in sufficiency, 0.76 in clarity, 0.91 in coherence and 0.95 in relevance for all items (p < 0.001). Final version of EVAD were applied to three participants for 7 weeks. Overall EVAD seems to be clear and meaningful for participants.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAD is a semistructured interview based on a consistent conceptual framework, and proven content validity following the most important guidelines described in the literature.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03878186.

Psychological interventions for depression in children and adolescents: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Depression has gradually become a common psychological disorder among children and adolescents. Depression in children and adolescents affects their physical and mental development. Psychotherapy is considered to be one of the main treatment options for depressed children and adolescents. However, our understanding of the global performance and progress of psychological interventions for depression in children and adolescents (PIDCA) research is limited.

AIM

To identify collaborative research networks in this field and explore the current research status and hotspots through bibliometrics.

METHODS

Articles and reviews related to PIDCA from January 2010 to April 2023 were identified from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The Charticulator website, CiteSpace and VOSviewer software were used to visualize the trends in publications and citations, the collaborative research networks (countries, institutions, and authors), and the current research status and hotspots.

RESULTS

Until April 16, 2023, 1482 publications were identified. The number of documents published each year and citations had increased rapidly in this field. The United States had the highest productivity in this field. The most prolific institution was the University of London. Pim Cuijpers was the most prolific author. In the context of research related to PIDCA, both reference co-citation analysis and keywords co-occurrence analysis identified 10 research hotspots, including third-wave cognitive behavior therapy, short-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy, family element in psychotherapy, modular treatment, mobile-health, emotion-regulation-based transdiagnostic intervention program, dementia risk in later life, predictors of the efficacy of psychological intervention, and risks of psychological intervention.

CONCLUSION

This bibliometric study provides a comprehensive overview of PIDCA from 2010 to present. Psychological intervention characterized as psychological-process-focused, short, family-involved, modular, internet-based, emotion-regulation-based, and personalized may benefit more young people.

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

BACKGROUND

Harms, also known as adverse events (AEs), are recorded and monitored in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure participants' safety. Harms are recorded poorly or inconsistently in RCTs of Behaviour Change Interventions (BCI); however, limited guidance exists on how to record harms in BCI trials. This qualitative study explored experiences and perspectives from multi-disciplinary trial experts on recording harms in BCI trials.

METHODS

Data were collected through fifteen in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews and three focus groups with thirty-two participants who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Participants included multi-disciplinary staff from eight CTUs, Chief investigators, and patient and public representatives. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified, namely perception and understanding of harm, proportionate reporting and plausibility, the need for a multi-disciplinary approach, language of BCI harms and complex harms for complex interventions. Participants strongly believed harms should be recorded in BCI trials; however, making decisions on "how and what to record as harms" was difficult. Recording irrelevant harms placed a high burden on trial staff and participants, drained trial resources and was perceived as for little purpose. Participants believed proportionate recording was required that focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention. Multi-disciplinary trial team input was essential for identifying and collecting harms; however, this was difficult in practice due to lack of knowledge on harms from BCIs, lack of input or difference in opinion. The medical language of harms was recognised as a poor fit for BCI trial harms but was familiar and established within internal processes. Future guidance on this topic would be welcomed and could include summarised literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Recording harms or adverse events in behaviour change intervention trials is complex and challenging; multi-disciplinary experts in trial design and implementation welcome forthcoming guidance on this topic. Issues include the high burden of recording irrelevant harms and use of definitions originally designed for drug trials. Proportionate recording of harms focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention and multi-disciplinary team input into decision making are essential.

Review: Adverse event monitoring and reporting in studies of pediatric psychosocial interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adverse event monitoring in studies of psychotherapy is crucial to clinical decision-making, particularly for weighing of benefits and harms of treatment approaches. In this systematic review, we identified how adverse events are defined, measured, and reported in studies of psychosocial interventions for children with mental disorders.

METHOD

Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2011-January 2023, and Google Scholar from January 2011-February 2023. English language experimental and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the efficacy or effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for childhood mental disorders were included. Information on the definition, assessment, and report of adverse events was extracted using a checklist based on Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

RESULTS

In this review, 117 studies were included. Studies most commonly involved treating anxiety disorders or obsessive-compulsive disorder (32/117; 27%); 44% of the experimental interventions tested (52/117) were cognitive behavioral therapies. Adverse events were monitored in 36 studies (36/117; 31%) with a protocol used in 19 of these studies to guide monitoring (19/36; 53%). Twenty-seven different events were monitored across the studies with hospitalization the most frequently monitored (3/36; 8%). Event severity was fully assessed in 6 studies (17%) and partially assessed in 12 studies (33%). Only 4/36 studies (11%) included assessing events for cause.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, adverse events have been inconsistently defined, measured and reported in psychosocial intervention studies of childhood mental health disorders. Information on adverse events is an essential knowledge component for understanding the potential impacts and risks of therapeutic interventions.

Examining outcomes for service users accessing the Breaking Free Online computer-assisted therapy program for substance use disorders via a 'telehealth' approach: protocol for a two arm, parallel group randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Breaking Free Online (BFO), a computer-assisted therapy (CAT) program for substance use disorders (SUD), has been available across UK treatment services for the past decade and has demonstrated efficacy. The Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to digital and 'telehealth' approaches to healthcare delivery becoming more common and accepted, and has in parallel, increased numbers of referrals to SUD services because of the impact pandemic-related stress has had on substance using habits in the general population. Digital and telehealth approaches, such as BFO, have the potential to support the treatment system to meet this increased demand for SUD services.

METHODS

Parallel-group randomized controlled trial of eight-week BFO as an adjunct to standard treatment for SUD, in comparison to standard treatment only, at a National Health Service (NHS) Mental Health Trust in North-West England. Participants will be service users aged 18 years and over with demonstrable SUD for at least 12-months. Interventional and control groups will be compared on multiple measures from baseline to post-treatment assessment at eight-weeks, and then three and six-months follow-up. Primary outcome will be self-reported substance use, with secondary outcomes being standardized assessments of substance dependence, mental health, biopsychosocial functioning and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

This study will examine whether BFO and telehealth support, when delivered as an adjunct to standard SUD interventions, improves outcomes for services users receiving NHS SUD treatment. Findings from the study will be used to inform both developments to the BFO program and guidance around augmenting the delivery of CAT programs via telehealth. Trial registration registered with ISRCTN on 25th May 2021-registration number: 13694016.

PROTOCOL VERSION

3.0 05th April 2022.

TRIAL STATUS

This trial is currently open to recruitment-estimated to be completed in May 2023.

Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Guidance for systematic reviews of interventions recommends both benefits and harms be included. Systematic reviews may reach conclusions about harms (or lack of harms) that are not true when reviews include only some relevant studies, rely on incomplete data from eligible studies, use inappropriate methods for synthesizing data, and report results selectively. Separate reviews about harms could address some of these problems, and we argue that conducting separate reviews of harms is a feasible alternative to current standards and practices. Systematic reviews of potential benefits could be organized around the use of interventions for specific health problems. Systematic reviews of potential harms could be broader, including more diverse study designs and including all people at risk of harms (who might use the same intervention to treat different health problems). Multiple reviews about benefits could refer to a single review of harms. This approach could improve the reliability, completeness, and efficiency of systematic reviews.

Identifying and Categorizing Adverse Events in Trials of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Narrative Scoping Review of Trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry

BACKGROUND

To contextualize the benefits of an intervention, it is important that adverse events (AEs) are reported. This is potentially difficult in trials of digital mental health interventions, where delivery may be remote and the mechanisms of actions less understood.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the reporting of AEs in randomized controlled trials of digital mental health interventions.

METHODS

The International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number database was searched for trials registered before May 2022. Using advanced search filters, we identified 2546 trials in the category of mental and behavioral disorders. These trials were independently reviewed by 2 researchers against the eligibility criteria. Trials were included where digital mental health interventions for participants with a mental health disorder were evaluated through a completed randomized controlled trial (protocol and primary results publication published). Published protocols and primary results publications were then retrieved. Data were extracted independently by 3 researchers, with discussion to reach consensus when required.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials met the eligibility criteria, of which 16 (69%) included a statement on AEs within a publication, but only 6 (26%) reported AEs within their primary results publication. Seriousness was referred to by 6 trials, relatedness by 4, and expectedness by 2. More interventions delivered with human support (9/11, 82%) than those with only remote or no support (6/12, 50%) included a statement on AEs, but they did not report more AEs. Several reasons for participant dropout were identified by trials that did not report AEs, of which some were identifiable or related to AEs, including serious AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation in the reporting of AEs in trials of digital mental health interventions. This variation may reflect limited reporting processes and difficulty recognizing AEs related to digital mental health interventions. There is a need to develop guidelines specifically for these trials to improve future reporting.

Benefits and harms of interventions to improve anxiety, depression, and other mental health outcomes for autistic people: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

LAY ABSTRACT

Nearly three out of four autistic people experience mental health problems such as stress, anxiety or depression. The research already done does not guide us on how best to prevent or treat mental health problems for autistic people. Our aim was to look at the benefits and harms of different interventions on mental health outcomes in autistic people. We searched all the published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about interventions for mental health conditions in autistic people until 17 October 2020. We also searched for RCTs that were not published in peer-reviewed journals. These were obtained from registers of clinical trials online. We then combined the information from all these trials using advanced statistical methods to analyse how good the interventions are. Seventy-one studies (3630 participants) provided information for this research. The studies reported how participants were responding to the intervention for only a short period of time. The trials did not report which interventions worked for people with intellectual disability. In people without intellectual disability, some forms of cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness therapy may be helpful. However, further research is necessary. Many trials used medications to target core features of autism rather than targeting mental health conditions, but these medications did not help autistic people. Until we have more evidence, treatment of mental health conditions in autistic people should follow the evidence available for non-autistic people. We plan to widely disseminate the findings to healthcare professionals through medical journals and conferences and contact other groups representing autistic people.

Practical suggestions for harms reporting in exercise oncology: the Exercise Harms Reporting Method (ExHaRM)

The volume of high-quality evidence supporting exercise as beneficial to cancer survivors has grown exponentially; however, the potential harms of exercise remain understudied. Consequently, the trade-off between desirable and undesirable outcomes of engaging in exercise remains unclear to clinicians and people with cancer. Practical guidance on collecting and reporting harms in exercise oncology is lacking. We present a harms reporting protocol developed and refined through exercise oncology trials since 2015.Development of the Exercise Harms Reporting Method (ExHaRM) was informed by national and international guidelines for harms reporting in clinical trials involving therapeutic goods or medical devices, with adaptations to enhance applicability to exercise. The protocol has been adjusted via an iterative process of implementation and adjustment through use in multiple exercise oncology trials involving varied cancer diagnoses (types: breast, brain, gynaecological; stages at diagnosis I-IV; primary/recurrent), and heterogeneous exercise intervention characteristics (face to face/telehealth delivery; supervised/unsupervised exercise). It has also involved the development of terms (such as, adverse outcomes, which capture all undesirable physical, psychological, social and economic outcomes) that facilitate the harms assessment process in exercise.ExHaRM involves: step 1: Monitor occurrence of adverse outcomes through systematic and non-systematic surveillance; step 2: Assess and record adverse outcomes, including severity, causality, impact on intervention and type; step 3: Review of causality by harms panel (and revise as necessary); and step 4: Analyse and report frequencies, rates and clinically meaningful details of all-cause and exercise-related adverse outcomes.ExHaRM provides guidance to improve the quality of harms assessment and reporting immediately, while concurrently providing a framework for future refinement. Future directions include, but are not limited to, standardising exercise-specific nomenclature and methods of assessing causality.

Tensions Between Autistic Sociality, Communication, and Social Skills Research: A Response to Bambara (2022) and Camarata (2022)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this letter to the editor is to further elucidate the arguments Keates (2022) and Beechey (2022) stated in their letters to the editor. Both Bambara (2022) and Camarata (2022) pose comments that require clarifying the original arguments, particularly regarding power and autistic sociality, which we feel will provide further clarity to this highly significant and growing topic within autism research.

CONCLUSION

We recommend teaching not autistic people but rather non-autistic individuals about autistic sociality, in order to lower the burden on autistic interlocutors in cross-neurotype interactions and socialization (as per previous literature, Bottema-Beutel et al., 2018). We provide recommendations to address difficulties in cross-neurotype interactions-for example, bridging the neurotype gap through practice or psychosocial interventions for acceptance of autistic people and their system of interpretation, as per Jones et al. (2021).

Optimized Informed Consent for Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Informed consent is a legal and ethical prerequisite for psychotherapy. However, in clinical practice, consistent strategies to obtain informed consent are scarce. Inconsistencies exist regarding the overall validity of informed consent for psychotherapy as well as the disclosure of potential mechanisms and negative effects, the latter posing a moral dilemma between patient autonomy and nonmaleficence.

Objective

This protocol describes a randomized controlled web-based trial aiming to investigate the efficacy of a one-session optimized informed consent consultation.

Methods

The optimized informed consent consultation was developed to provide information on the setting, efficacy, mechanisms, and negative effects via expectation management and shared decision-making techniques. A total of 122 participants with an indication for psychotherapy will be recruited. Participants will take part in a baseline assessment, including a structured clinical interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition (DSM-5) disorders. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned either to a control group receiving an information brochure about psychotherapy as treatment as usual (n=61) or to an intervention group receiving treatment as usual and the optimized informed consent consultation (n=61). Potential treatment effects will be measured after the treatment via interview and patient self-report and at 2 weeks and 3 months follow-up via web-based questionnaires. Treatment expectation is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include the capacity to consent, decisional conflict, autonomous treatment motivation, adherence intention, and side-effect expectations.

Results

This trial received a positive ethics vote by the local ethics committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University-Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany on April 1, 2021, and was prospectively registered on June 17, 2021. The first participant was enrolled in the study on August 5, 2021. We expect to complete data collection in December 2022. After data analysis within the first quarter of 2023, the results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals in summer 2023.

Conclusions

If effective, the optimized informed consent consultation might not only constitute an innovative clinical tool to meet the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent but also strengthen the contributing factors of psychotherapy outcome, while minimizing nocebo effects and fostering shared decision-making.

Trial Registration

PsychArchives; http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4929

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/39843

High-intensity interval training or resistance training versus usual care in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance: A three-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the feasibility of a phase II randomized controlled trial of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), resistance training (RT), and usual care (UC) in men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) and evaluated changes in clinically relevant outcomes.

METHODS

Eighteen men undergoing AS for PCa were randomized to HIIT (n=5), RT (n=7), or UC (n=6). Exercise participants attended two supervised sessions weekly and were instructed to complete one home-based session weekly for 8 weeks. UC participants were provided with physical activity guidelines.

RESULTS

Feasibility was met for attendance, compliance, and retention, but not recruitment. HIIT increased leg press (mean: +8.2kg, 95%CI 1.1, 15.3) from baseline to 8 weeks. RT increased seated row (mean: +11.7kg, 95%CI 6.1, 17.3) and chest press (mean: +10.4kg, 95%CI 5.3, 15.5), leg press (mean: +13.1kg, 95%CI 5.9, 20.3), serum insulin-like binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) (mean: +400.0ng/ml, 95%CI 94.5, 705.5), and decreased interferon-γ (mean: -3.1pg/ml, 95%CI -5.7, -0.4). No changes were observed in the UC group.

CONCLUSION

HIIT and RT may be effective strategies for improving muscle strength; however, only RT may increase serum IGFBP-3. Strategies that can enhance recruitment in men on AS are important prior to conducting a phase II trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04266262 Novelty bullets • High-intensity interval training or resistance training are feasible during active surveillance for prostate cancer. • Resistance training may suppress the tumor-promoting effects of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) via increased expression of IGFBP-3.