Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34247435›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey.

Faith Gibson, Lorna A Fern, Bob Phillips, Helen Gravestock, Sonia Malik, Amy Callaghan, Karen Dyker, Mike Groszmann, Leila Hamrang, Rachael Hough and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. The Many Faces of Engagement: A Scoping Review of Paediatric Patient and Family Engagement in Clinical Care, Education and Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Priority setting for children and young people with chronic conditions and disabilities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

18 authors.

Faith GibsonCentre for Outcomes and Experience Research in Children's Health, Illness and Disability, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Lorna A FernCancer Clinical Trials Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4821-8466
Bob PhillipsCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Helen GravestockPolicy, Influencing and Voice, Young Lives vs Cancer, London, UK.
Sonia MalikPolicy and Influencing, Young Lives vs Cancer, London, UK.
Amy CallaghanTeenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership steering group, Glasgow, UK.
Karen DykerClinical Oncology Department, Clinical Oncology Department, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Mike GroszmannPsychological Medicine Department, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Leila HamrangTeenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership steering group, Manchester, UK.
Rachael HoughDepartment of Adolescent Haematology, Children and Young People's Cancer Service, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Demi McGeachyTeenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership steering group, Glasgow, UK.
Sue MorganTeenage and Young Adult Cancer Service, Ward L33, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Sam SmithTeenage Cancer Trust, London, UK.
Sheela UpadhyayaTrials and Studies Coordinating Centre, The James Lind Alliance, National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Helen VeitchTeenage Cancer Trust, London, UK.
Max WilliamsonTeenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership steering group, London, UK.
Jeremy WhelanDivision of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Susie AldissSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conducted a UK-wide survey to identify the top 10 research questions for young people's cancer. We conducted secondary analysis of questions submitted, which were 'out-of-scope' of the original survey aim. We sought to disseminate these questions, to inform practice, policy and the development of potential interventions to support young people with cancer.

designJames Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

participantsYoung people aged 13-24 with a current/previous cancer diagnosis, their families/friends/partners and professionals who work with this population.

methodsEight hundred and fifty-five potential research questions were submitted, and 326 were classified as 'out-of-scope'. These questions, along with 49 'free-text' comments, were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsThe 375 out-of-scope questions and comments were submitted by: 68 young people, 81 family members/partners/friends and 42 professionals. Ten overarching themes were identified: diagnostic experience; communication; coordination of care; information needs and lack of information; service provision; long-term effects and aftercare support; family support; financial impact; end-of life care; and research methods and current research.

conclusionsThe need to tailor services, information and communication is a striking thread evidenced across the 'out-of-scope' questions. Gaps in information highlight implications for practice in revisiting information needs throughout the cancer trajectory. We must advocate for specialist care for young people and promote the research priorities and these findings to funding bodies, charities, young people and health and social care policymakers, in order to generate an evidence base to inform effective interventions across the cancer trajectory and improve outcomes. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Patients and carers were equal stakeholders throughout.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchNeoplasmsAdolescentCaregiversHealth PrioritiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultcancerinformationJames Lind Alliancesupportteenageyoung adult

Identifiers

PMID34247435
PMCPMC8483195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.