Optimizing a Retention Strategy with Young People for BRIGHTLIGHT, a Longitudinal Cohort Study Examining the Value of Specialist Cancer Care for Young People

Barriers to medication adherence among adolescents and young adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

Adherence promotion is a critical component of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer care, but predictors of nonadherence that could be targeted in intervention efforts remain largely unknown. The purpose of this multi-site longitudinal observational study was to examine the relationship between barriers and medication adherence among AYAs with cancer.

PROCEDURE

Sixty-five AYAs (ages 15-24 years; mean age = 18.97 years, SD = 2.51; Mmean time since diagnosis = 1.42 years, SD = 1.95) with newly diagnosed or relapsed cancer completed self-report measures of barriers and adherence at quarterly study visits and used an electronic adherence monitoring device for 12 months. Longitudinal mixed effects models were used to examine our primary hypothesis that greater barriers are related to lower adherence over time. Descriptive statistics were used to explore our secondary aim of describing the frequency and patterns of barriers endorsed by AYAs with cancer.

RESULTS

After controlling for covariates (time, medication type, race, ethnicity, diagnosis, time since diagnosis), a greater number of barriers was associated with lower electronically monitored (β = -5.99, p = .005) and self-reported (β = -1.92, p < .001) adherence. The specific barriers endorsed by AYAs differed across participants, and the majority of AYAs endorsed an entirely different pattern of barriers than any other AYA in the study.

CONCLUSION

Barriers are associated with nonadherence and may be a promising target for intervention. Individual variability across barriers, however, suggests that tailoring may be necessary, and a promising next step is to explore personalized approaches to adherence promotion.

Italian pediatric and adult oncology communities join forces for a national project dedicated to adolescents and young adults with cancer

Adolescents and young adults with cancer have substantially different clinical and psychological needs compared to those of pediatric patients and of older adult patients. We describe the development of an Italian national project dedicated to adolescents and young adults with cancer.

Specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England: BRIGHTLIGHT research programme

Background

When cancer occurs in teenagers and young adults, the impact is far beyond the physical disease and treatment burden. The effect on psychological, social, educational and other normal development can be profound. In addition, outcomes including improvements in survival and participation in clinical trials are poorer than in younger children and older adults with similar cancers. These unique circumstances have driven the development of care models specifically for teenagers and young adults with cancer, often focused on a dedicated purpose-designed patient environments supported by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in the needs of teenagers and young adults. In England, this is commissioned by NHS England and delivered through 13 principal treatment centres. There is a lack of evaluation that identifies the key components of specialist care for teenagers and young adults, and any improvement in outcomes and costs associated with it.

Objective

To determine whether or not specialist services for teenagers and young adults with cancer add value.

Design

A series of multiple-methods studies centred on a prospective longitudinal cohort of teenagers and young adults who were newly diagnosed with cancer.

Settings

Multiple settings, including an international Delphi study of health-care professionals, qualitative observation in specialist services for teenagers and young adults, and NHS trusts.

Participants

A total of 158 international teenage and young adult experts, 42 health-care professionals from across England, 1143 teenagers and young adults, and 518 caregivers.

Main outcome measures

The main outcomes were specific to each project: key areas of competence for the Delphi survey; culture of teenagers and young adults care in the case study; and unmet needs from the caregiver survey. The primary outcome for the cohort participants was quality of life and the cost to the NHS and patients in the health economic evaluation.

Data sources

Multiple sources were used, including responses from health-care professionals through a Delphi survey and face-to-face interviews, interview data from teenagers and young adults, the BRIGHTLIGHT survey to collect patient-reported data, patient-completed cost records, hospital clinical records, routinely collected NHS data and responses from primary caregivers.

Results

Competencies associated with specialist care for teenagers and young adults were identified from a Delphi study. The key to developing a culture of teenage and young adult care was time and commitment. An exposure variable, the teenagers and young adults Cancer Specialism Scale, was derived, allowing categorisation of patients to three groups, which were defined by the time spent in a principal treatment centre: SOME (some care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults, and the rest of their care in either a children’s or an adult cancer unit), ALL (all care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults) or NONE (no care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults). The cohort study showed that the NONE group was associated with superior quality of life, survival and health status from 6 months to 3 years after diagnosis. The ALL group was associated with faster rates of quality-of-life improvement from 6 months to 3 years after diagnosis. The SOME group was associated with poorer quality of life and slower improvement in quality of life over time. Economic analysis revealed that NHS costs and travel costs were similar between the NONE and ALL groups. The ALL group had greater out-of-pocket expenses, and the SOME group was associated with greater NHS costs and greater expense for patients. However, if caregivers had access to a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults (i.e. in the ALL or SOME groups), then they had fewer unmet support and information needs.

Limitations

Our definition of exposure to specialist care using Hospital Episode Statistics-determined time spent in hospital was insufficient to capture the detail of episodes or account for the variation in specialist services. Quality of life was measured first at 6 months, but an earlier measure may have shown different baselines.

Conclusions

We could not determine the added value of specialist cancer care for teenagers and young adults as defined using the teenage and young adult Cancer Specialism Scale and using quality of life as a primary end point. A group of patients (i.e. those defined as the SOME group) appeared to be less advantaged across a range of outcomes. There was variation in the extent to which principal treatment centres for teenagers and young adults were established, and the case study indicated that the culture of teenagers and young adults care required time to develop and embed. It will therefore be important to establish whether or not the evolution in services since 2012–14, when the cohort was recruited, improves quality of life and other patient-reported and clinical outcomes.

Future work

A determination of whether or not the SOME group has similar or improved quality of life and other patient-reported and clinical outcomes in current teenage and young adult service delivery is essential if principal treatment centres for teenagers and young adults are being commissioned to provide ‘joint care’ models with other providers.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer: a position paper from the AYA Working Group of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE)

It is well recognised that adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer have inequitable access to oncology services that provide expert cancer care and consider their unique needs. Subsequently, survival gains in this patient population have improved only modestly compared with older adults and children with cancer. In 2015, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) established the joint Cancer in AYA Working Group in order to increase awareness among adult and paediatric oncology communities, enhance knowledge on specific issues in AYA and ultimately improve the standard of care for AYA with cancer across Europe. This manuscript reflects the position of this working group regarding current AYA cancer care, the challenges to be addressed and possible solutions. Key challenges include the lack of specific biological understanding of AYA cancers, the lack of access to specialised centres with age-appropriate multidisciplinary care and the lack of available clinical trials with novel therapeutics. Key recommendations include diversifying interprofessional cooperation in AYA care and specific measures to improve trial accrual, including centralising care where that is the best means to achieve trial accrual. This defines a common vision that can lead to improved outcomes for AYA with cancer in Europe.

Longitudinal cohort study of the impact of specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults on quality of life: outcomes from the BRIGHTLIGHT study

OBJECTIVES

In England, healthcare policy advocates specialised age-appropriate services for teenagers and young adults (TYA), those aged 13 to 24 years at diagnosis. Specialist Principal Treatment Centres (PTC) provide enhanced TYA age-specific care, although many still receive care in adult or children's cancer services. We present the first prospective structured analysis of quality of life (QOL) associated with the amount of care received in a TYA-PTC DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

Hospitals delivering inpatient cancer care in England.

PARTICIPANTS

1114 young people aged 13 to 24 years newly diagnosed with cancer.

INTERVENTION

Exposure to the TYA-PTC defined as patients receiving NO-TYA-PTC care with those receiving ALL-TYA-PTC and SOME-TYA-PTC care.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Quality of life measured at five time points: 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Group mean total QOL improved over time for all patients, but for those receiving NO-TYA-PTC was an average of 5.63 points higher (95% CI 2.77 to 8.49) than in young people receiving SOME-TYA-PTC care, and 4·17 points higher (95% CI 1.07 to 7.28) compared with ALL-TYA-PTC care. Differences were greatest 6 months after diagnosis, reduced over time and did not meet the 8-point level that is proposed to be clinically significant. Young people receiving NO-TYA-PTC care were more likely to have been offered a choice of place of care, be older, from more deprived areas, in work and have less severe disease. However, analyses adjusting for confounding factors did not explain the differences between TYA groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of some or all care in a TYA-PTC was associated with lower QOL shortly after cancer diagnosis. The NO-TYA-PTC group had higher QOL 3 years after diagnosis, however those receiving all or some care in a TYA-PTC experienced more rapid QOL improvements. Receipt of some care in a TYA-PTC requires further study.

BRIGHTLIGHT researchers as 'dramaturgs': creating There is a Light from complex research data

BACKGROUND

BRIGHTLIGHT is a national evaluation of cancer services for young people aged 13-24 years in England. It is a mixed methods study with six interlinked studies aiming to answer the question: do specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults add value? http://www.brightlightstudy.com/. Young people have been integral to study development and management, working as co-researchers, consultants and collaborators throughout. We aimed to share results in a way that was meaningful to young people, the public, and multidisciplinary professionals. This paper reports the development of 'There is a Light: BRIGHTLIGHT', a theatrical interpretation of study results by young people, and offers insight into the impact on the cast, researchers and audiences.

METHODS

The BRIGHTLIGHT team collaborated with Contact Young Company, a youth theatre group in Manchester. Twenty members of Contact Young Company and four young people with cancer worked together over an eight-week period during which BRIGHTLIGHT results were shared along with explanations of cancer, healthcare policy and models of care in interactive workshops. Through their interpretation, the cast developed the script for the performance. The impact of the process and performance on the cast was evaluated through video diaries. The research team completed reflective diaries and audiences completed a survey.

RESULTS

'There is a Light' contained five acts and lasted just over an hour. It played 11 performances in six cities in the United Kingdom, to approximately 1377 people. After nine performances, a 30-min talk-back between members of the cast, creative team, an expert healthcare professional, and the audience was conducted, which was attended by at least half the audience. Analysis of cast diaries identified six themes: initial anxieties; personal development; connections; cancer in young people; personal impact; interacting with professionals. The cast developed strong trusting relationships with the team. Professionals stated they felt part of the process rather than sitting on the periphery sharing results. Both professional and lay audiences described the performance as meaningful and understandable. Feedback was particularly positive from those who had experienced cancer themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Using theatre to present research enabled BRIGHTLIGHT results to be accessible to a larger, more diverse audience.

Instagram as a tool for study engagement and community building among adolescents: A social media pilot study

Objective

Social media has been recognized as a promising tool for delivering health interventions and facilitating study recruitment. However, research is needed to understand how social media might be used to enhance the experiences of adolescent participants in ongoing studies. In a prospective cohort study addressing social and structural influences on health trajectories among 599 adolescents in a California agricultural community, we evaluated the effectiveness of and engagement with a human-centered, Instagram-based outreach campaign, with a focus on study retention, enhancement of participants’ experiences, and increasing community awareness of the study.

Methods

We adopted a youth-centered approach to design a three-month pilot study, which included participatory design sessions, a geo-targeted Instagram campaign, and in-person events at schools. We conducted pre-/post-pilot surveys with study participants, analyzed social media metrics, and collected process measures, such as study visit show rates.

Results

After three months, the study Instagram account had 209 followers and 806 total engagements. Survey responses showed little change in study participants’ attitudes about the study; most survey respondents agreed that the study is very important for the community (54% pre-pilot and 52% post-pilot). However, the study’s Instagram account appeared to influence study participation, with 43% of post-pilot respondents who use Instagram (n=65 of 153) indicating that the Instagram account influenced their decision to continue coming to study visits.

Conclusion

Despite little change in the participants’ attitudes about the study, the findings of this pilot study suggest that Instagram is a promising tool to support engagement of adolescent participants in ongoing research, particularly if the content is designed with adolescents as partners. In addition to assessing the effectiveness of an Instagram outreach campaign to support retention, this paper also presents suggestions and insights for creating similar social media interventions targeting youth.

Models of Care-There Is More Than One Way to Deliver

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer constitute a particular group of patients with unique features, whose needs during and after treatment are poorly met. A standardized model of care for them has yet to be established, as neither the pediatric nor the adult oncology systems seamlessly fit their needs. Regardless of the setting in which they are treated, their health care providers should be aware of the impact that the disease and its treatments have on these especially vulnerable patients. Simple ways of improving the AYA experience should be considered: reducing isolation through connections with peers, adapting the staff's approach to the emotional and developmental needs of this age group, and modifying the hospital environment making it more age appropriate. Commitment of national governments is valuable; building and sharing international experience will accelerate advances in clinical care, education, and research. Further progress in the care of AYA cancer patients is still needed to improve their outcomes.

Dynamics and Challenges of Clinical Trials in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer

Inclusion in cancer clinical trials is considered the optimal standard of care, offering improved patient experience and progressive survival gains for subsequent generations of patients. Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients are underrepresented in cancer research; consequently, improvements in outcomes for AYAs lag behind their pediatric and adult counterparts. Despite international evidence of underrepresentation in research, systematically tested interventions to improve recruitment for AYAs do not exist, and recruitment rates for AYAs continue to be lower than those for children. We review recruitment of AYAs into trials and discuss barriers and facilitators.

Description of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort: the evaluation of teenage and young adult cancer services in England

OBJECTIVE

International 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.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal, observational study.

SETTING

Ninety-seven National Health Service hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

A 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%).

RESULTS

At 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%).

CONCLUSIONS

Data 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.

Involving young people in BRIGHTLIGHT from study inception to secondary data analysis: insights from 10 years of user involvement

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Young people with cancer are often described as 'hard to reach', 'difficult to engage' and/or 'vulnerable'. Consequently, they are often over looked for patient and public involvement activities. We set out to involve young people with cancer to work as co-researchers in the design of the largest ever study of young people with cancer, called BRIGHTLIGHT. In the 10 years since the BRIGHTLIGHT feasibility work began we have involved more than 1200 young people as co-researchers, collaborators, consultants and dissemination partners. We chronicle the key points of this 10-year journey, sharing our success, describing our challenges and the solutions we put in place; sharing also what worked and did not work. Here we share some of these experiences of involving young people in this research and offer some practical advice for those looking to do the same.

ABSTRACT

Background Young people with cancer, broadly those aged 13-24 years at diagnosis, warrant special attention; physiological and psychological growth creates complex psychosocial needs which neither adult nor child systems are suitably designed to deal with. Resulting from these needs, they are often described as 'vulnerable', 'hard to reach' and 'difficult to engage', and consequently are often over looked for patient and public involvement/engagement (PPIE) roles. In our study 'BRIGHTLIGHT', we set out to evaluate whether specialist care for young people adds value, ensuring young people were central to our PPIE activities. We believe that BRIGHTLIGHT is unique as a very large study of young people with cancer which has successfully overcome the challenges of including young people in the research process so we are confident that they have influenced every aspect of study design, conduct and dissemination. Methods We chronicle a period of 10 years, over which we describe our approach and our methods to involving young people in PPIE activities in BRIGHTLIGHT. We describe the feasibility work, study set up, conduct and dissemination of our findings, and weave through our story of PPIE to illustrate its benefits. Through the narration of our experience we highlight significant points that both influenced and changed our direction of travel. We reflect on our experiences and offer some practical advice for those looking to do the same. Results In the 10 years since the BRIGHTLIGHT feasibility work began we have involved more than 1200 young people. Their contributions have been isolated and mapped over a 10-year period. We begin at an early step of identifying what research questions to prioritize, we then plot PPIE activities for one of these research priorities, place of care, which evolved into BRIGHTLIGHT. We document steps along the way to evidence the impact of this involvement. Conclusions Young people can make a valuable contribution to healthcare research given adequate support from the research team. Although some challenges exist, we propose that the benefits to young people, researchers and the study considerably outweigh these challenges and PPIE with young people should be integrated in all similar research studies.

Discussing factors associated with quality of life in cancer follow-up appointments: a preliminary test of a pragmatic model for clinical practice

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study is to perform a preliminary test of a practical, evidence-based model to enable discussions around quality of life-related concerns during cancer follow-up appointments.

DESIGN:

Cross-sectional study measuring quality of life, illness perceptions, emotional distress, fatigue, and subjective cognitive complaints.

SETTING:

Cancer outpatient follow-up clinics in four National Health Services in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS:

Working-age post-treatment cancer patients, treated with curative intent.

INTERVENTIONS:

Not applicable.

MAIN MEASURES:

European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer - Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30, Illness Perceptions Questionnaire - Revised, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Chalder Fatigue Scale, and Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

RESULTS:

Fifty-seven cancer patients, with a mean age of 36 years and on average 2.75 years post treatment, returned the completed questionnaires. Anxiety partially mediated the association between subjective cognitive complaints and illness identity (60%) and timeline (25%). Cognitive complaints mediated the relationships between quality of life and anxiety (45%), depression (30%), and fatigue (62%). Depression mediated the relationships between quality of life and illness identity (48%) and timeline (40%).

CONCLUSION:

Our study provides a preliminary test of an evidence-based model to help elicit quality of life-related concerns during cancer follow-up appointments. Illness perceptions are associated with quality of life through the mediation of other cancer-relevant factors. Discussing the type, origin, and expected duration of symptoms may elicit other concerns, such as emotional distress, fatigue, or cognitive complaints, which explained a significant amount of the relationship between illness perceptions and quality of life.

Enhancing accrual to clinical trials of adolescents and young adults with cancer

Underrepresentation of young people in cancer research is an international phenomenon and may contribute to poorer outcomes. We sought to identify systematically tested interventions and strategies to improve recruitment. The review identified 13 papers. The following four themes emerged: trial availability/regulatory factors; service configuration/place-of-care factors; recruitment methods and developmental factors specific to young people. We could not identify any studies that had employed prospective interventions to improve recruitment. Without available research studies in which to garner data on adolescents and young adults, we will always be constrained in our ability to provide evidence based care with resultant limitations on our ability to improve outcomes.