Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29122799›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Qualitative study to understand the barriers to recruiting young people with cancer to BRIGHTLIGHT: a national cohort study in England.

Charlotte Kenten, Ana Martins, Lorna A Fern, Faith Gibson, Sarah Lea, Nothando Ngwenya, Jeremy S Whelan, Rachel M Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. BRIGHTLIGHT researchers as 'dramaturgs': creatingResearch involvement and engagement · 2020
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Charlotte KentenCancer Division, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ana MartinsCancer Division, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Lorna A FernCancer Division, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Faith GibsonSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Sarah LeaCancer Division, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Nothando NgwenyaCancer Division, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jeremy S WhelanCancer Division, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rachel M TaylorCancer Division, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesBRIGHTLIGHT is a national evaluation of cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England. Following challenges with recruitment, our aim was to understand more fully healthcare professionals' perspectives of the challenges of recruiting young people to a low-risk observational study, and to provide guidance for future recruitment processes.

designQualitative.

settingNational Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England.

methodsSemistructured telephone interviews with a convenience sample of 23 healthcare professionals. Participants included principal investigators/other staff recruiting into the BRIGHTLIGHT study. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

resultsThe emergent themes were linked to levels of research organisational management, described using the levels of social network analysis: micro-level (the individual; in this case the target population to be recruited-young people with cancer); meso-level (the organisation; refers to place of recruitment and people responsible for recruitment); and macro-level (the large-scale or global structure; refers to the wider research function of the NHS and associated policies). Study-related issues occurred across all three levels, which were influenced by the context of the study. At the meso-level, professionals' perceptions of young people and communication between professionals generated age/cancer type silos, resulting in recruitment of either children or adults, but not both by the same team, and only in the cancer type the recruiting professional was aligned to. At the macro-level the main barrier was discordant configuration of a research service with a clinical service.

conclusionsThis study has identified significant barriers to recruitment mainly at the meso-level and macro-level, which are more challenging for research teams to influence. We suggest that interconnected whole-system changes are required to facilitate the success of interventions designed to improve recruitment. Interventions targeted at study design/management and the micro-level only may be less successful. We offer solutions to be considered by those involved at all levels of research for this population.

Indexed as

Observational Studies as TopicPatient SelectionAdolescentData CollectionEnglandFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNeoplasmsQualitative ResearchState MedicineYoung Adultbrightlightcancerrecruitmentresearchteenageryoung adult

Identifiers

PMID29122799
PMCPMC5695486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.