↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic timeliness in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a cross-sectional analysis of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort
Published in
The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/s2352-4642(18)30004-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annie Herbert, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Jeremy Whelan, Rachel M Taylor, Julie Barber, Faith Gibson, Lorna A Fern

Abstract

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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 4 14%
Unspecified 3 10%
Other 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 8 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 21%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 05 July 2019.
All research outputs
#943,217
of 13,816,277 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health
#158
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,474
of 356,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health
#14
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,816,277 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 356,600 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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.