Direct access to potential research participants for a cohort study using a confidentiality waiver included in UK National Health Service legal statutes

Would you like to be contacted about future research?

Many research participants are willing to be contacted about future research opportunities, however this question is not always asked. Furthermore, if participants do consent for contact about future research, this information is not always accessible to other research teams. We discuss our experience of recruiting individuals who have previously taken part in healthcare research and suggest potential strategies to support this process and enable greater research participation.

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.

Processes of care and survival associated with treatment in specialist teenage and young adult cancer centres: results from the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Survival gains in teenagers and young adults (TYA) are reported to be lower than children and adults for some cancers. Place of care is implicated, influencing access to specialist TYA professionals and research.Consequently, age-appropriate specialist cancer care is advocated for TYA although systematic investigation of associated outcomes is lacking. In England, age-appropriate care is delivered through 13 Principal Treatment Centres (TYA-PTC). BRIGHTLIGHT is the national evaluation of TYA cancer services to examine outcomes associated with differing places and levels of care. We aimed to examine the association between exposure to TYA-PTC care, survival and documentation of clinical processes of care.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

109 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals across England.

PARTICIPANTS

1114 TYA, aged 13-24, newly diagnosed with cancer between 2012 and 2014.

INTERVENTION

Participants were assigned a TYA-PTC category dependent on the proportion of care delivered in a TYA-PTC in the first year after diagnosis: all care in a TYA-PTC (ALL-TYA-PTC, n=270), no care in a TYA-PTC (NO-TYA-PTC, n=359), and some care in a TYA-PTC with additional care in a children's/adult unit (SOME-TYA-PTC, n=419).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Data were collected on documented processes indicative of age-appropriate care using clinical report forms, and survival through linkage to NHS databases.

RESULTS

TYA receiving NO-TYA-PTC care were less likely to have documentation of molecular diagnosis, be reviewed by a children's or TYA multidisciplinary team, be assessed by supportive care services or have a fertility discussion. There was no significant difference in survival according to category of care. There was weak evidence that the association between care category and survival differed by age (p=0.08) with higher HRs for those over 19 receiving ALL or SOME-TYA-PTC compared with NO-TYA-PTC.

CONCLUSION

TYA-PTC care was associated with better documentation of clinical processes associated with age-appropriate care but not improved survival.

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.