Cited by 9Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHead and Neck Cancer StudiesInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare

High levels of socioeconomic deprivation do not inhibit patients’ communication of concerns in head and neck cancer review clinics

Open access
Allen, S., Harris, R., Brown, S.L., Humphris, G., Zhou, Y., Rogers, S.N.·2018·British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Abstract

To examine associations between socioeconomic status and the extent to which patients with cancer of the head and neck expressed concerns to surgeons during routine follow-up clinics, we analysed audio recordings of 110 consultations with one consultant. We used the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VRCoDES) to measure communication between the doctor and the patient, and grouped the English indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) 2015 scores into deciles to compare the VRCoDES with socioeconomic status. There were no significant correlations between IMD decile and the number and type of cues and concerns, or the type of response by the consultant, but there was a positive correlation between IMD decile and duration of appointment (r=0.288, p<0.01). When the duration of appointment was controlled for, there was a negative correlation between IMD decile and number of cues and concerns (r=-0.221, p<0.05). These findings question the assumption that socioeconomic status is associated with a patient's willingness to express concerns. Shorter consultations suggest that less time is spent responding to their concerns or building a rapport. Clinicians might find it advantageous to adopt strategies that will improve their understanding of these patients and help them to communicate more effectively.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 110 audiorecorded head and neck cancer review consultations, area-level socioeconomic deprivation (IMD decile) was not significantly correlated with patients’ cues/concerns or clinician responses. Appointment length was positively correlated with IMD decile, and after controlling for appointment length, higher IMD decile was associated with fewer cues/concerns.

Key findings

  • No significant correlations were found between IMD decile and number of cues and concerns, elicitation of cues/concerns, clinician responses, type of cues, or proportion of concerns to cues (e.g., number of cues and concerns: r = -.004, p = .97; patient-elicited cues/concerns: r = .072, p = .456; consultant-elicited cues/concerns: r = -.059, p = .543).
  • IMD decile was positively correlated with appointment length, r = .288, p < .01.
  • When appointment length was controlled with Pearson’s partial correlation, IMD decile was negatively correlated with number of cues and concerns, r = -.221, p < .05.
  • Time to first cue or concern showed a positive correlation with IMD decile that approached significance, r = .218, p = .077.

Methods

  • The study analysed 110 audiorecorded head and neck oncology review consultations with a single consultant head and neck surgeon.
  • Patient SES was measured using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 scores, split into deciles and accessed via patient postcodes.
  • Communication was coded using the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VRCoDES); associations were examined with Pearson’s correlation and Pearson’s partial correlation controlling for appointment length.

Limitations

  • The paper states that only 110 audiotapes were analysed, so the sample size may have been too small to detect significant differences.
  • The paper states that only one consultant participated, limiting generalisability, though this controlled for variation between consultants.
  • The paper states that IMD is area-level and based on postcodes, so individuals in deprived areas may still be high SES by education or occupation; the text also notes that an ordinal regression suggested by a reviewer was not done because it would require a larger sample and be underpowered.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.05.015

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 16 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    There was a positive correlation between IMD decile and appointment length, r = .288, p < .01.

    “There was a positive correlation between IMD decile and appointment length, r = .288,p <.01.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “There was however a significant positive correlation between IMD decile and length of appointment, r = .288,p < .01.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When appointment length was controlled for, there was a negative correlation between IMD decile and number of cues and concerns, r = -.221, p < .05.

    “When appointment length was controlled for, there was a negative correlation between IMD decile and number of cues and concerns, r = -.221,p < .05.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “In addition, when length of appointment was controlled using a Pearson's partial correlation, a significant and negative association between number of cues and concerns and IMD decile was found, r = -.221,p < .05.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The clinician did not favour higher or lower SES groups in eliciting concerns.

    “although we note that the clinician did not favour higher or lower SES groups in eliciting concerns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning

    It may be the patient not the doctor who curtails rapport building by moving towards problem solving.

    “Such an interpretation fits with previous research finding that healthcare professionals spend more time building rapport with high SES patients (11), and adds the insight that it may be the patient not the doctor who curtails rapport building by moving towards problem solving.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] source
  • Interpretationown data

    The findings question the assumption that SES is associated with patients' willingness to express their concerns during consultations.

    “These findings question the assumption that SES is associated with patients' willingness to express their concerns during consultations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Area-level deprivation measured by IMD is a valid proxy for patient socioeconomic status.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • May combine two claims. 11
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Healthcare professionals tend to involve low SES patients less in their consultations by giving them less information, spending less time building rapport with them and listening less attentively.

    “Furthermore healthcare professionals tend to involve low SES patients less in their consultations by giving them less information, spending less time building rapport with them and listening less attentively (9,11,12).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [9] source
    • cites [11] source
    • cites [12] source

      The 'What the doctor did in consultation' section and Table VII report that doctors perceived themselves as explaining, listening, and giving advice less often to patients in social classes IV and V. The paper does not establish that they spent less time building rapport or listened less attentively; it also cautions that patient perceptions differed less by social class than doctors’ perceptions did. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Low educated patients attached most importance to affective elements of a consultation, whereas middle and high educated patients felt that problem-solving was more important.

    “The Aelbrecht et al. (24) study found that low educated patients attached most importance to affective elements of a consultation, whereas middle and high educated patients felt that problem-solving was more important.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Doctor-patient communication differs depending upon the patient's SES.

    “However studies have found that doctor-patient communication differs depending upon the patient's SES (10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The present study's findings are in line with a previous study on patient preferences for communication style.

    “This is in line with a previous study on patient preferences for communication style (24).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    More communication is not necessarily better communication.

    “Whilst we acknowledge that more communication is not necessarily better communication (25), it may be advantageous for clinicians to adopt active strategies that allow them to build rapport with lower SES patients who are keen to voice their concerns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    There was a positive correlation between IMD decile and time to first cue or concern which approached significance, r = .218, p = .077.

    “There was a positive correlation between IMD decile and time to first cue or concern which approached significance, r = .218,p = .077.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no significant correlations between IMD decile and the number and type of cues and concerns or the type of healthcare provider responses.

    “There were no significant correlations between IMD decile and the number and type of cues and concerns or the type of healthcare provider responses.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “As can be seen in Table 4 there were no significant correlations between IMD decile and number of cues and concerns, elicitation of cues and concerns, clinician responses to cues and concerns, type of cues and proportion of concerns to cues.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “In the present study no significant correlations were found between IMD decile and number of cues and concerns, elicitation, or consultant responses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Low SES patients are quick to express any issues to their consultant, with relatively little small-talk around these or other issues.

    “It may be that low SES patients are quick to express any issues to their consultant, with relatively little small-talk around these or other issues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Shorter consultations suggest that less time is invested in either providing elaborate answers to patients' concerns or with rapport building.

    “Shorter consultations suggest that less time is invested in either providing elaborate answers to patients' concerns or with rapport building.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Low SES patients tend to participate less actively in consultations, for example asking fewer questions, as well as being less likely to express emotions and spontaneously volunteer information.

    “Low SES patients tend to participate less actively in consultations, for example asking fewer questions, as well as being less likely to express emotions and spontaneously volunteer information (11).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationcitation

    Higher SES patients may have received more elaborate clinician responses to their cues and concerns.

    “Alternatively, higher SES patients may have received more elaborate clinician responses to their cues and concerns, although we note that the clinician did not favour higher or lower SES groups in eliciting concerns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Patient participation is linked to positive patient outcomes such as improved quality of life, reduced anxiety and depression, greater satisfaction, better sharing of information, and better treatment adherence.

    “Research suggests that patient participation is linked to positive patient outcomes such as improved quality of life, reduced anxiety and depression, greater satisfaction, better sharing of information, and better treatment adherence (6)(7)(8)(9).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [6] source
    • cites [7] source
    • cites [8] source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The negative association when consultation length was controlled does not show that lower SES patients expressed more cues and concerns, but that a greater amount of time was taken in discussions between patients and their consultant during which patients did not express cues or concerns.

    “This does not show that lower SES patients expressed more cues and concerns, but that a greater amount of time was taken in discussions between patients and their consultant during which patients did not express cues or concerns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    There may have been greater general discussion and rapport building.

    “There may have been greater general discussion and rapport building.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Less communication exists between lower SES patients and their clinician, possibly because patients are quicker to broach their concerns.

    “However, our findings suggest that less communication exists between lower SES patients and their clinician, possibly because patients are quicker to broach their concerns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Area-level deprivation measured by IMD is a valid proxy for patient socioeconomic status.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Building rapport is an important aspect of clinical communication with a number of benefits for patients.

    “Nonetheless, building rapport is an important aspect of clinical communication with a number of benefits for patients (5,(7)(8)(9), and low SES patients may be placed at a disadvantage if less time is spent building rapport.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] source
    • cites [7] source
    • cites [8] source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample size may have been too small to detect any significant differences.

    “Firstly only 110 audiotapes were analysed as part of this study, therefore the sample size may have been too small to detect any significant differences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Low SES patients may be placed at a disadvantage if less time is spent building rapport.

    “Nonetheless, building rapport is an important aspect of clinical communication with a number of benefits for patients (5,(7)(8)(9), and low SES patients may be placed at a disadvantage if less time is spent building rapport.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All procedures performed in this study were approved by and in accordance with the ethical standards of the Clinical Audit Department, University Hospital Aintree, University of St Andrews School of Medicine and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

    “All procedures performed in this study were approved by and in accordance with the ethical standards of the Clinical Audit Department, University Hospital Aintree, University of St Andrews School of Medicine and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    High SES patients were more interested in receiving information and engaging in problem-solving during the consultation.

    “It may be that in the present study high SES patients were more interested in receiving information and engaging in problem-solving during the consultation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

    “Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because IMD scores pertain to postcodes, an individual may live in an area with a high level of deprivation but be high SES in terms of education or occupation.

    “As IMD scores pertain to postcodes, it is possible that although an individual may live in an area with a high level of deprivation they may be high SES in terms of education or occupation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
22 of 22
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few studies have explored the effect of socioeconomic differences on patient communication with head and neck cancer patients, and none have used LoD as a measure of SES.

    “Few studies have explored the effect of socioeconomic differences on patient communication with head and neck cancer patients, and none have used LoD as a measure of SES.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The UK National Health Service provides theoretically equal access to health services across the SES spectrum.

    “The UK National Health Service provides theoretically equal access to health services across the SES spectrum, allowing a systematic comparison between higher and lower SES individuals.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Area-level deprivation measured by IMD is a valid proxy for patient socioeconomic status.

    “Patient SES was measured using Indices of Multiple Deprivation (17) scores which were split into deciles.”
3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allen, S., Harris, R., Brown, S. L., Humphris, G., Zhou, Y., & Rogers, S. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Edge Hill University (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Allen, S.
  • Harris, R.
  • Brown, S.L.
  • Humphris, G.
  • Zhou, Y.
  • Rogers, S.N.
Venue
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
56
Issue
6
Pages
536-539
ISSN
0266-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808297839
Cited by
9
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Edge Hill University (submittedVersion)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care - Greater Manchester
  • National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
socioeconomic deprivation, head and neck cancer, patient concerns, physician-patient communication, follow-up clinic, consultation time, health disparities
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Emotions, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Social Class, Socioeconomic Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-14.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-14.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review