Observational studyBMJ open2019
Description of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort: the evaluation of teenage and young adult cancer services in England.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Requirements for Setting Up a Dedicated Structure for Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer-A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping Support-Seeking After Cancer Treatment: A Co-Designed Model of Triggers, Timing and Support Pathways in Young People with Lived Experience of Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Article
- When Research Evidence and Healthcare Policy Collide: Synergising Results and Policy into BRIGHTLIGHT Guidance to Improve Coordinated Care for Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England: interpreting BRIGHTLIGHT study results through the lens of young people with cancer.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Article
- Radiation Reveal: Moving from research engagement to involvement.British journal of cancer · 2024Review
- Proteomic features of soft tissue tumours in adolescents and young adults.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- The Emotional Impact of a Cancer Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study of Adolescent and Young Adult Experience.Cancers · 2024Article
- Article
- Research involvement and engagement of adolescent and young adults in a cancer trajectory: a 5-year experience from a patient support facility at a university hospital.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Associations between diagnostic time intervals and health-related quality of life, clinical anxiety and depression in adolescents and young adults with cancer: cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- Adolescents and young adults' (AYA) views on their cancer knowledge prior to diagnosis: Findings from a qualitative study involving AYA receiving cancer care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Article
- Treatment patterns and outcomes in adolescents and young adults with Hodgkin lymphoma in pediatric versus adult centers: An IMPACT Cohort Study.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Association of Self-reported Presenting Symptoms With Timeliness of Help-Seeking Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the BRIGHTLIGHT Study.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- BRIGHTLIGHT researchers as 'dramaturgs': creatingResearch involvement and engagement · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInternational recognition of the unique needs of young people with cancer is growing. Many countries have developed specialist age-appropriate cancer services believing them to be of value. In England, 13 specialist principal treatment centres (PTCs) deliver cancer care to young people. Despite this expansion of specialist care, systematic investigation of associated outcomes and costs has, to date, been lacking. The aim of this paper is to describe recruitment and baseline characteristics of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort and the development of the bespoke measures of levels of care and disease severity, which will inform the evaluation of cancer services in England.
designProspective, longitudinal, observational study.
settingNinety-seven National Health Service hospitals in England.
participantsA total of 1114 participants were recruited and diagnosed between July 2012 and December 2014: 55% (n=618) were men, mean age was 20.1 years (SD=3.3), most (86%) were white and most common diagnoses were lymphoma (31%), germ cell tumour (19%) and leukaemia (13%).
resultsAt diagnosis, median quality of life score was significantly lower than a published control threshold (69.7 points); 40% had borderline to severe anxiety, and 21% had borderline to severe depression. There was minimal variation in other patient-reported outcomes according to age, diagnosis or severity of illness. Survival was lower in the cohort than for young people diagnosed during the same period who were not recruited (cumulative survival probability 4 years after diagnosis: 88% vs 92%).
conclusionsData collection was completed in March 2018. Longitudinal comparisons will determine outcomes and costs associated with access/exposure to PTCs. Findings will inform international intervention and policy initiatives to improve outcomes for young people with cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.