Qualitative study to understand the barriers to recruiting young people with cancer to BRIGHTLIGHT: a national cohort study in England

The Impact of Specialist Care on Teenage and Young Adult Patient-Reported Outcomes in England: A BRIGHTLIGHT Study

Purpose: In England, health care policy promotes specialized age-appropriate cancer services for teenagers and young adults (TYA), for those aged 13-24 years at diagnosis. Specialist Principal Treatment Centers (PTCs) provide enhanced age-specific care for TYA, although many still receive all or some of their care in adult or children's cancer services. Our aim was to determine the patient-reported outcomes associated with TYA-PTC based care. Methods: We conducted a multicenter cohort study, recruiting 1114 TYA aged 13-24 years at diagnosis. Data collection involved a bespoke survey at 6,12,18, 24, and 36 months after diagnosis. Confounder adjusted analyses of perceived social support, illness perception, anxiety and depression, and health status, compared patients receiving NO-TYA-PTC care with those receiving ALL-TYA-PTC and SOME-TYA-PTC care. Results: Eight hundred and thirty completed the first survey. There was no difference in perceived social support, anxiety, or depression between the three categories of care. Significantly higher illness perception was observed in the ALL-TYA-PTC and SOME-TYA-PTC group compared to the NO-TYA-PTC group, (adjusted difference in mean (ADM) score on Brief Illness Perception scale 2.28 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.48-4.09) and 2.93 [1.27-4.59], respectively, p = 0.002). Similarly, health status was significantly better in the NO-TYA-PTC (ALL-TYA-PTC: ADM -0.011 [95%CI -0.046 to 0.024] and SOME-TYA-PTC: -0.054 [-0.086 to -0.023]; p = 0.006). Conclusion: The reason for the difference in perceived health status is unclear. TYA who accessed a TYA-PTC (all or some care) had higher perceived illness. This may reflect greater education and promotion of self-care by health care professionals in TYA units.

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.

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.

A qualitative investigation assessing whether implementing a Teenage Young Adult information evening, within a radiotherapy department, would improve the information support and treatment pathway for 18-24-year-old cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the current information services provided to 10 Teenage Young Adult (TYA) oncology patients within a single radiotherapy department through retrospective patient views. Additionally, the participants provided valuable perspectives on the aptness and merit of implementing a dedicated information evening within the radiotherapy department.

METHODS

Focus group sessions and open-ended questionnaires were used as the primary data collection tools for this study, producing rich and informative data. The transcriptions from the focus groups, along with the questionnaire responses were then analysed using coding techniques, resulting in 6 distinct themes.

RESULTS

The participants felt they received adequate information about their radiotherapy treatment and its side effects. However, participants did report some gaps within the service provision that need to be addressed to improve treatment pathways in future. Furthermore, the information was always supplied in paper format which was often undesirable to the cohort with a more interactive format preferred. The participants disclosed very strong feelings of being different to "usual cancer patients" and displayed a desire for more opportunities to meet other TYA patients to be provided within their pathway.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings of this study suggest that the implementation of a dedicated TYA open evening would improve the information support and treatment pathway for 18-24-year-old cancer patients. The evening could offer a wanted opportunity where TYA patients could meet each other and additionally, treatment information and age appropriate support information could be provided in a different and more suitable format than current paper-based literature.

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.

Outcomes important to patients with non-infectious posterior segment-involving uveitis: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Uveitis, a group of disorders characterised by intraocular inflammation, causes 10%-15% of total blindness in the developed world. The most sight-threatening forms of non-infectious uveitis are those affecting the posterior segment of the eye, collectively known as posterior segment-involving uveitis (PSIU). Numerous different clinical outcomes have been used in trials evaluating treatments for PSIU, but these may not represent patients' and carers' concerns. Therefore, the aims of this study were to understand the impact of PSIU on adult patients' and carers' lives and to explore what outcomes of treatment are important to them.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Four focus group discussions were undertaken to understand the perspectives of adult patients (=18) and carers (10) with PSIU. Participants were grouped according to whether or not their uveitis was complicated by the sight-threatening condition uveitic macular oedema. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework analytical approach. Outcomes were identified and grouped into outcome domains.

RESULTS

Eleven core domains were identified as important to patients and carers undergoing treatment for PSIU, comprising (1) visual function, (2) symptoms, (3) functional ability, (4) impact on relationships, (5) financial impact, (6) psychological morbidity and emotional well-being, (7) psychosocial adjustment to uveitis, (8) doctor/patient/interprofessional relationships and access to healthcare, (9) treatment burden, (10) treatment side effects, and (11) disease control.

CONCLUSION

The domains identified represent patients' and carers' experience and perspectives and can be used to reflect on outcomes assessed in PSIU. They will directly inform the development of a core outcome set for PSIU clinical trials.

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.

Diagnostic timeliness in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort

Background

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are thought to experience prolonged intervals to cancer diagnosis, but evidence quantifying this hypothesis and identifying high-risk patient subgroups is insufficient. We aimed to investigate diagnostic timeliness in a cohort of AYAs with incident cancers and to identify factors associated with variation in timeliness.

Methods

We did a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort, which included AYAs aged 12-24 years recruited within an average of 6 months from new primary cancer diagnosis from 96 National Health Service hospitals across England between July 1, 2012, and April 30, 2015. Participants completed structured, face-to-face interviews to provide information on their diagnostic experience (eg, month and year of symptom onset, number of consultations before referral to specialist care); demographic information was extracted from case report forms and date of diagnosis and cancer type from the national cancer registry. We analysed these data to assess patient interval (time from symptom onset to first presentation to a general practitioner [GP] or emergency department), the number of prereferral GP consultations, and the symptom onset-to-diagnosis interval (time from symptom onset to diagnosis) by patient characteristic and cancer site, and examined associations using multivariable regression models.

Findings

Of 1114 participants recruited to the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort, 830 completed a face-to-face interview. Among participants with available information, 204 (27%) of 748 had a patient interval of more than a month and 242 (35%) of 701 consulting a general practitioner had three or more prereferral consultations. The median symptom onset-to-diagnosis interval was 62 days (IQR 29-153). Compared with male AYAs, female AYAs were more likely to have three or more consultations (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·6 [95% CI 1·1-2·3], p=0·0093) and longer median symptom onset-to-diagnosis intervals (adjusted median interval longer by 24 days [95% CI 11-37], p=0·0005). Patients with lymphoma or bone tumours (adjusted OR 1·2 [95% CI 0·6-2·1] compared with lymphoma) were most likely to have three or more consultations and those with melanoma least likely (0·2 [0·1-0·7] compared with lymphoma). The adjusted median symptom onset-to-diagnosis intervals were longest in AYAs with bone tumours (51 days [95% CI 29-73] longer than for lymphoma) and shortest in those with leukaemia (33 days [17-49] shorter than for lymphoma).

Interpretation

The findings provide a benchmark for diagnostic timeliness in young people with cancer and help to identify subgroups at higher risk of a prolonged diagnostic journey. Further research is needed to understand reasons for these findings and to prioritise and stratify early diagnosis initiatives for AYAs.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research, Teenage Cancer Trust, and Cancer Research UK.