Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Monitoring adverse social and medical events in public health trials: assessing predictors and interpretation against a proposed model of adverse event reporting

  • Moody, Gwenllian1
  • Addison, Katy1
  • Cannings-John, Rebecca1
  • Sanders, Julia2
  • Wallace, Carolyn3
  • Robling, Michael1
  • 1 Cardiff University, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK , Cardiff (United Kingdom)
  • 2 Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK , Cardiff (United Kingdom)
  • 3 PRIME (Wales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research), Heath Park, Cardiff, UK , Cardiff (United Kingdom)
Published Article
Springer (Biomed Central Ltd.)
Publication Date
Dec 30, 2019
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3961-8
Springer Nature


BackgroundAlthough adverse event (AE) monitoring in trials focusses on medical events, social outcomes may be important in public or social care trials. We describe our approach to reporting and categorising medical and other AE reports, using a case study trial. We explore predictors of medical and social AEs, and develop a model for conceptualising safety monitoring.MethodsThe Building Blocks randomised controlled trial of specialist home visiting recruited 1618 first-time mothers aged 19 years or under at 18 English sites. Event reports collected during follow-up were independently reviewed and categorised as either Medical (standard Good Clinical Practice definition), or Social (trial-specific definition). A retrospectively developed system was created to classify AEs. Univariate analyses explored the association between baseline participant and study characteristics and the subsequent reporting of events. Factors significantly associated at this stage were progressed to binary logistic regressions to assess independent predictors.ResultsA classification system was derived for reported AEs that distinguished between Medical or Social AEs. One thousand, three hundred and fifteen event reports were obtained for mothers or their babies (1033 Medical, 257 Social). Allocation to the trial intervention arm was associated with increased likelihood of Medical rather than Social AE reporting. Poorer baseline psycho-social status predicted both Medical and Social events, and poorer psycho-social status better predicted Social rather than Medical events. Baseline predictors of Social AEs included being younger at recruitment (OR = 0.78 (CI = 0.67 to 0.90), p = 0.001), receiving benefits (OR = 1.60 (CI = 1.09 to 2.35), p = 0.016), and having a higher antisocial behaviour score (OR = 1.22 (CI = 1.09 to 1.36), p < 0.001). Baseline predictors of Medical AEs included having a limiting long-term illness (OR = 1.37 (CI = 1.01 to 1.88), p = 0.046), poorer mental health (OR = 1.03 (CI = 1.01 to 1.05), p = 0.004), and being in the intervention arm of the trial (OR = 1.34 (CI = 1.07 to 1.70), p = 0.012).ConclusionsContinuity between baseline and subsequent adverse experiences was expected despite potentially beneficial intervention impact. We hypothesise that excess events reported for intervention-arm participants is likely attributable to surveillance bias. We interpreted our findings against a new model that explicates processes that may drive event occurrence, presentation and reporting. Focussing only upon Medical events may miss the well-being and social circumstances that are important for interpreting intervention safety and participant management.Trial registrationISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN23019866. Registered on 20 April 2009.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times