ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Evaluation of specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England: interpreting BRIGHTLIGHT study results through the lens of young people with cancer.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- SUPPORT MY WAY: Supporting Young People After Treatment for Cancer: What Is Needed, When This Is Needed and How This Can Be Best Delivered.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBRIGHTLIGHT was the first national evaluation of teenage and young adult (TYA) cancer services in England. BRIGHTLIGHT evaluated care for TYA aged 13 to 24 years at diagnosis and comprised six interlinked studies. Young people have been involved in BRIGHTLIGHT design, operational troubleshooting and dissemination. Divergent conclusions emerged from the programme, which healthcare professionals could not explain. We sought to gather young people's interpretation of the results based on their lived experience of cancer.
methodsSeven members of the BRIGHTLIGHT Young Advisory Panel (YAP) participated in a one-day workshop and two members acted as co-researchers. An overview of the BRIGHTLIGHT studies and key results were presented. To facilitate interpretation an artist illustrated the results in real-time. A focus group style discussion followed the presentation and was also illustrated.
resultsThe YAP made some key interpretations of the results not identified by researchers including the length of follow-up (3-years was not long enough) and how specialist care had been defined (using number of admissions rather than duration of hospitalisation). They explained the higher healthcare costs in those receiving care in more than one hospital, could be due to duplication of tests/scans. The YAP also identified that the results did not relay the importance of the diagnostic experience, which also incurred costs to TYA/families.
conclusionsPatient experience adds further interpretation to complex study results beyond what is visible to healthcare professionals. The YAP added further insight to results and contributed to the formulation of the conclusion for the BRIGHTLIGHT programme grant.
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.