• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

青少年和青年癌症患者接受专科服务对生活质量影响的纵向队列研究:BRIGHTLIGHT 研究结果。

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

机构信息

Centre for Nurse, Midwife and AHP Led Research (CNMAR), University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Cancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 26;10(11):e038471. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038471.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038471
PMID:33243793
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7692812/
Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

在英国,医疗保健政策提倡为青少年和年轻人(13 至 24 岁确诊)提供专门的适龄服务。专科主要治疗中心(PTC)提供增强的青少年年龄特异性护理,尽管许多人仍在成人或儿童癌症服务中接受护理。我们首次对在 TYA-PTC 中接受护理量相关的生活质量(QOL)进行了前瞻性结构化分析。

设计

纵向队列研究。

地点

在英格兰提供住院癌症护理的医院。

参与者

1114 名新诊断为癌症的 13 至 24 岁的年轻人。

干预

暴露于 TYA-PTC 定义为接受 NO-TYA-PTC 护理的患者与接受 ALL-TYA-PTC 和 SOME-TYA-PTC 护理的患者。

主要结果

生活质量在五个时间点进行测量:诊断后 6、12、18、24 和 36 个月。

结果

所有患者的组平均总 QOL 随时间推移而改善,但对于接受 NO-TYA-PTC 护理的患者,其 QOL 平均比接受 SOME-TYA-PTC 护理的患者高 5.63 分(95%CI 2.77 至 8.49),比接受 ALL-TYA-PTC 护理的患者高 4.17 分(95%CI 1.07 至 7.28)。差异在诊断后 6 个月最大,随时间推移而减少,且未达到建议的 8 分临床显著水平。接受 NO-TYA-PTC 护理的年轻人更有可能被提供护理地点的选择,年龄更大,来自更贫困的地区,在职,且疾病较轻。然而,调整混杂因素的分析并未解释 TYA 组之间的差异。

结论

在 TYA-PTC 中接受部分或全部护理与癌症诊断后不久的 QOL 较低相关。在诊断后 3 年,NO-TYA-PTC 组的 QOL 较高,然而,在 TYA-PTC 中接受全部或部分护理的患者经历了更快的 QOL 改善。在 TYA-PTC 中接受部分护理需要进一步研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/649868cbe802/bmjopen-2020-038471f08.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/ef84f14a5fee/bmjopen-2020-038471f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/63d01c9e6f0b/bmjopen-2020-038471f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/ca214bb9ab73/bmjopen-2020-038471f03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/cbbba2d39149/bmjopen-2020-038471f04.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/db58bd5e77cf/bmjopen-2020-038471f05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/0db09f5adaac/bmjopen-2020-038471f06.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/cac437c1637b/bmjopen-2020-038471f07.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/649868cbe802/bmjopen-2020-038471f08.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/ef84f14a5fee/bmjopen-2020-038471f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/63d01c9e6f0b/bmjopen-2020-038471f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/ca214bb9ab73/bmjopen-2020-038471f03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/cbbba2d39149/bmjopen-2020-038471f04.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/db58bd5e77cf/bmjopen-2020-038471f05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/0db09f5adaac/bmjopen-2020-038471f06.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/cac437c1637b/bmjopen-2020-038471f07.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca15/7692812/649868cbe802/bmjopen-2020-038471f08.jpg

相似文献

1
Longitudinal cohort study of the impact of specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults on quality of life: outcomes from the BRIGHTLIGHT study.青少年和青年癌症患者接受专科服务对生活质量影响的纵向队列研究:BRIGHTLIGHT 研究结果。
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 26;10(11):e038471. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038471.
2
Processes of care and survival associated with treatment in specialist teenage and young adult cancer centres: results from the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort study.专科青少年和青年癌症中心的治疗相关护理流程与生存情况:BRIGHTLIGHT队列研究结果
BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 7;11(4):e044854. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044854.
3
Young people's opinions of cancer care in England: the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort.英国年轻人对癌症护理的看法:BRIGHTLIGHT 队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 Sep 20;13(9):e069910. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069910.
4
The Impact of Specialist Care on Teenage and Young Adult Patient-Reported Outcomes in England: A BRIGHTLIGHT Study.英国专家护理对青少年和年轻成年患者报告结局的影响:BRIGHTLIGHT 研究。
J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2024 Jun;13(3):492-501. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2023.0141. Epub 2024 Jan 30.
5
The BRIGHTLIGHT National Survey of the Impact of Specialist Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Care on Caregivers' Information and Support Needs.BRIGHTLIGHT 全国调查:青少年和青年癌症护理对护理人员信息和支持需求的影响。
Cancer Nurs. 2021;44(3):235-243. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000771.
6
7
Description of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort: the evaluation of teenage and young adult cancer services in England.BRIGHTLIGHT 队列描述:英格兰青少年和青年癌症服务评估。
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 20;9(4):e027797. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027797.
8
Evaluation of specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England: interpreting BRIGHTLIGHT study results through the lens of young people with cancer.英格兰青少年和青年成人专科癌症服务评估:透过癌症青年患者视角解读BRIGHTLIGHT研究结果
Res Involv Engagem. 2025 May 29;11(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40900-025-00739-7.
9
Geographical Factors Affecting the Admission of Teenagers and Young Adults to Age-Specialist Inpatient Cancer Care in England.影响英格兰青少年和青年进入成人癌症专科住院治疗的地理因素。
J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2014 Mar 1;3(1):28-36. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2013.0016.
10
Sleep Quality Among Teenagers and Young Adults With Cancer.青少年和青年癌症患者的睡眠质量。
Cancer Nurs. 2021 Jan/Feb;44(1):13-19. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000707.

引用本文的文献

1
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.当研究证据与医疗政策发生冲突时:将研究结果与政策相结合,形成BRIGHTLIGHT指南,以改善对青少年和青年癌症患者的协调护理。
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Jul 26;13(15):1821. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13151821.
2
Health-related quality of life of long-term adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors compared to a matched normative population: results of the SURVAYA study.长期青少年及青年(AYA)癌症幸存者与匹配的正常人群相比的健康相关生活质量:SURVAYA研究结果
J Cancer Surviv. 2025 Jun 17. doi: 10.1007/s11764-025-01818-0.
3

本文引用的文献

1
BRIGHTLIGHT researchers as 'dramaturgs': creating from complex research data.“明亮之光”研究项目的研究人员作为“戏剧编剧”:从复杂的研究数据中进行创作。
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Aug 10;6:48. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00222-5. eCollection 2020.
2
Development of System Performance Indicators for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Care and Control in Canada.加拿大青少年和青年癌症护理与控制的系统绩效指标的制定。
Value Health. 2020 Jan;23(1):74-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.08.004. Epub 2019 Oct 11.
3
Models of care for adolescent and young adult cancer programs.
Evaluation of specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England: interpreting BRIGHTLIGHT study results through the lens of young people with cancer.
英格兰青少年和青年成人专科癌症服务评估:透过癌症青年患者视角解读BRIGHTLIGHT研究结果
Res Involv Engagem. 2025 May 29;11(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40900-025-00739-7.
4
Young people's opinions of cancer care in England: the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort.英国年轻人对癌症护理的看法:BRIGHTLIGHT 队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 Sep 20;13(9):e069910. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069910.
5
Beyond Medical Care: How Different National Models of Care Impact the Experience of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients.超越医疗护理:不同国家的护理模式如何影响青少年和青年癌症患者的体验。
J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2023 Dec;12(6):859-867. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2022.0182. Epub 2023 May 22.
6
Treatment de-escalation for stage II seminoma.Ⅱ期精原细胞瘤的降阶梯治疗。
Nat Rev Urol. 2023 Aug;20(8):502-512. doi: 10.1038/s41585-023-00727-0. Epub 2023 Mar 7.
7
Cancer burden in adolescents and young adults in Europe.欧洲青少年和青年人群的癌症负担。
ESMO Open. 2023 Feb;8(1):100744. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100744. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
8
Associations between diagnostic time intervals and health-related quality of life, clinical anxiety and depression in adolescents and young adults with cancer: cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort.诊断时间间隔与癌症青少年和青年的健康相关生活质量、临床焦虑和抑郁之间的关联:BRIGHTLIGHT 队列的横断面分析。
Br J Cancer. 2022 Jun;126(12):1725-1734. doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01698-6. Epub 2022 Feb 22.
9
Patterns and Predictors of Healthcare Use among Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors versus a Community Comparison Group.青少年和青年癌症幸存者与社区对照组相比的医疗保健使用模式及预测因素。
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Oct 20;13(21):5270. doi: 10.3390/cancers13215270.
10
Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey.全面报道:对詹姆斯·林德联盟青少年和青年癌症重点设定伙伴关系调查中“超纲”问题的分析。
Health Expect. 2021 Oct;24(5):1593-1606. doi: 10.1111/hex.13276. Epub 2021 Jul 10.
青少年和青年癌症项目的照护模式。
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Dec;66(12):e27991. doi: 10.1002/pbc.27991. Epub 2019 Sep 16.
4
Treatment-Related Adverse Events of PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitors in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.临床试验中 PD-1 和 PD-L1 抑制剂的治疗相关不良反应:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;5(7):1008-1019. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0393.
5
Description of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort: the evaluation of teenage and young adult cancer services in England.BRIGHTLIGHT 队列描述:英格兰青少年和青年癌症服务评估。
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 20;9(4):e027797. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027797.
6
Involving young people in BRIGHTLIGHT from study inception to secondary data analysis: insights from 10 years of user involvement.让年轻人从研究开始到二次数据分析全程参与“光明计划”:十年用户参与的见解
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Dec 27;4:50. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0135-x. eCollection 2018.
7
Conceptualizing age-appropriate care for teenagers and young adults with cancer: a qualitative mixed-methods study.为青少年和青年癌症患者制定适合其年龄阶段的护理方案:一项定性混合方法研究。
Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2018 Oct 24;9:149-166. doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S182176. eCollection 2018.
8
Models of Care-There Is More Than One Way to Deliver.护理模式——提供护理的方式不止一种。
Cancer J. 2018 Nov/Dec;24(6):315-320. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000338.
9
Sex, Body Image, and Relationships: A BRIGHTLIGHT Workshop on Information and Support Needs of Adolescents and Young Adults.性、身体意象和人际关系:BRIGHTLIGHT 青少年和年轻人信息与支持需求研讨会。
J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018 Oct;7(5):572-578. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2018.0025. Epub 2018 May 9.
10
Qualitative study to understand the barriers to recruiting young people with cancer to BRIGHTLIGHT: a national cohort study in England.定性研究,以了解招募癌症青年参与 BRIGHTLIGHT 研究的障碍:英格兰全国队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 8;7(11):e018291. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018291.