ArticleBMJ open2023
Young people's opinions of cancer care in England: the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overcoming Patient Access Barriers in Complex Conditions: Lessons from Schizophrenia for Broader Healthcare Applications.Journal of market access & health policy · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe BRIGHTLIGHT cohort study was the national evaluation of cancer services for teenager and young adults (TYA). This was analysis of free-text survey data to better understand their experiences of cancer care.
designCohort study
settingNational Health Service hospitals delivering cancer care in England
participants830 young people newly diagnosed with cancer.
interventionsExposure to specialist care in the first 6 months after diagnosis defined as care in a TYA Principal Treatment Centre (PTC). This was categorised as follows: all care in a TYA-PTC (ALL-TYA-PTC), no care in a TYA-PTC (NO-TYA-PTC) so care delivered in a children/adult unit only and some care in a TYA-PTC with additional care in a children's/adult unit (SOME-TYA-PTC). PRIMARY OUTCOME: Data were collected through the BRIGHTLIGHT survey included free-text questions which asked patients 'what was the best aspects of their experiences of care' and 'what aspects could be improved'. These comments were analysed using content analysis. Themes were compared between categories of care, then ranked in order of frequency, ranging from the most endorsed to the least.
resultsOverall, young people were most positive about their healthcare team, while the area highlighted for improvement was diagnostic experience. Differences between the three groups suggested those who had some or all treatment in a TYA-PTC valued the place of care. Regardless of where TYA were treated their healthcare teams were favourably viewed. Age appropriate place of care was highlighted to be of value for those in PTCs.
conclusionsThese data show the value young people placed on the care they received in TYA specific wards. Young people who accessed some or all of their care in a TYA-PTC highly endorsed their place of care as one of the best elements of their care, and it is further emphasised by those who had shared care who experienced difficulty with lack of age-appropriate care when treated outside the TYA-PTC.
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.