Cited by 58Ethics in Clinical ResearchSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Principles for defining adverse events in behavioral intervention research: lessons from a family-focused adolescent drug abuse trial

Open access
Horigian, Viviana E, Robbins, Michael S, Dominguez, Roberto, Ucha, Jessica, Rosa, Carmen L·2010·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background Behavioral intervention research has lagged behind biomedical research in developing principles for defining, categorizing, identifying, reporting, and monitoring adverse events and unanticipated problems. Purpose In this article we present a set of principles for defining adverse events and how they were applied in a large national multi-site family therapy study for substance-using adolescents, The Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT TM ) Effectiveness Study. Methods The BSFT TM Effectiveness study tested how BSFT TM compares to Treatment as Usual (TAU) for the treatment of drug-abusing adolescents. During protocol development, experts in the BSFT TM intervention, medical safety officers, ethicists and senior investigators defined the procedures for identifying, tracking and reporting adverse events for drug using adolescents as well as their family members. During this process the team identified five key guiding principles. Results The five guiding principles that were used for defining adverse events in this behavioral trial were that that the adverse events should be validated and plausible, and that monitoring systems should assess relatedness, be systematic, and are a shared responsibility. The following non-serious adverse events were identified: arrest, school suspension and drop out, runaway, kicked out of home and violence. The serious adverse events in this study for the identified adolescent participant and all other consented family members were physical or sexual abuse, suicidal behavior, homicidal behavior, hospitalization (drug related or psychiatric related only) and death. The methods used in categorizing, identifying and reporting adverse events in the BSFT TM trial are outlined. More than 50% of the adolescent population (277/481 = 57.5 %) experienced an adverse event during the trial. Family members experienced less adverse events, (61/1338 = 4.5%). The most common event for the adolescent group was arrest (164/277= 59.2%), followed by school suspension/dropout (143/277 = 51.6%), and runaway (79/277= 28.5 %). For the family member group, the most common event was violence (25/ 61 = 40.9%) followed by arrest (13/61 = 21.3%). There was a significant difference in the presence of adverse events in family members that were randomized to BSFT TM 44/721 (6.1%) when compared to Treatment as Usual 17/617 (2.8%) (p = 0.004). A probable explanation for this is that there were more opportunities to identify adverse events for family members assigned to BSFT TM because family members attended therapy sessions. This difference may also represent the risk for family members that participate in an evidence-based family intervention like BSFT TM . Limitations The utility of the principles outside of the BSFT TM trial is unknown. Conclusions Based on the events reported in this trial, the efforts for monitoring and categorizing adverse events appeared justified and appropriate. The strategies and principles described in this paper may be useful for those developing safety plans for behavioral intervention research, and to family therapy researchers for assessing the safety of behavioral family interventions. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 58—68. http://ctj.sagepub.com

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1740774509356575

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horigian, V. E., Robbins, M. S., Dominguez, R., Ucha, J., & Rosa, C. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Horigian, Viviana E
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2010-02
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
58-68
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W2067924575
Cited by
57
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (U10DA013720)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
adverse events, adverse event reporting, brief strategic family therapy, adolescent drug abuse, family therapy, addiction treatment, adverse event monitoring, family members, arrests, school suspension, runaways, violence, suicide, hospitalization, usual care, research ethics, safety monitoring system, protocol design, adolescent mental health services
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Behavior Therapy, Family Therapy, Humans, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Conduct Disorder, Substance-Related Disorders, Behavioral Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review