Patient and public involvement (PPI) is central to research and service planning. Identifying effective, meaningful ways of involvement is challenging. The cohort study 'Do specialist services for teenagers and young adults with cancer add value?' follows young people for three years, examining outcomes associated with specialist care. Participant retention in longitudinal research can be problematic potentially jeopardising study completion. Maximising study awareness through high impact branding and publicity may improve study retention. Study names are typically generated by researchers rather than designed with patients. We aimed to involve young people in developing a brand identity and name to 'Do specialist services for teenagers and young adults with cancer add value?'.
Nine young people aged 17-26 years diagnosed with cancer when aged 14-25 years participated in a one day workshop with further data collection at a patient conference. Methodology was similar to conventional branding and naming exercises and was divided into six stages. The workshop comprised five stages. Stage 1: 'What's in a brand' allowed young people to enquire why brands/logos are important, Stage 2: 'Brand Transformation' identified what young people needed to know and believe about the study when approached about participation, Stage 3: 'Brand Essence' determined how we wanted the study to be perceived by young people, Stage 4: 'What's in a name' identified potential names for the study. Stage 5: 'Logo creation' assembled the mood and feel of logos. Stage 6 was logo design and an electronic survey of 249 young people attending a patient conference.
BRIGHTLIGHT was the final study name and the brand essence (or study personality) was friendly, supportive and inspiring. Four logos were designed and the final logo received 47% (n = 115) of votes.
Acceptance and retention to BRIGHTLIGHT is higher than anticipated (80% versus 60%), this may be related to our integral PPI strategy. We propose this reproducible methodology as an important, enjoyable, and novel way of involving patients in research and a welcome alternative to researcher-developed acronyms. Ideally this should be carried out prior to engaging with healthcare professionals to prevent confusion around study identity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,834,358
of 28,160,144 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#819
of 2,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,712
of 281,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,160,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
