Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials

Trials. 2024 Jun 13;25(1):382. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08216-4.

Abstract

Background: Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

Methods: Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method.

Results: Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters.

Conclusion: Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Keywords: Communication; Disadvantage; Equipoise; Inclusivity; Qualitative; Randomised; Socioeconomic; Trial.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Communication
  • Female
  • Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
  • Healthcare Disparities
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Multicenter Studies as Topic
  • Neoplasms / therapy
  • Patient Selection
  • Physician-Patient Relations
  • Qualitative Research*
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic*
  • Research Subjects / psychology
  • Socioeconomic Factors*
  • Time Factors
  • United Kingdom
  • Vulnerable Populations*