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

Abstract Background Patients from socio-economically 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 compared patterns in verbal communication about trials between recruiters and patients from different socioeconomic areas. Methods Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from three qualitative studies embedded in their respective multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socio-economically 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.