Table 5. Receiving understandable answers to important questions from staff, by ethnicity.

Ethnicity	n	%	OR	95% CI	p-Value	ORadja	95% CI	p-Value
(a) Received an understandable answer from a clinical nurse specialistb
Broad ethnic category
White	35,953	91.2	(ref)c			(ref)c
Mixed	173	86.1	0.57	0.38–0.85	0.01	0.67	0.44–1.00	.05
Asian or Asian British	586	83.2	0.46	0.38–0.56	<.001	0.52	0.42–0.64	<0.001
Black or Black British	437	83.7	0.48	0.38–0.60	<.001	0.57	0.44–0.72	<0.001
Chinese	93	86.1	0.57	0.33–0.99	.05	0.65	0.37–1.28	0.12
Any other ethnic group	60	81.1	0.40	0.22–0.71	<.001	0.48	0.16–0.87	0.02
Ethnic sub-category
White British	34,745	91.6	(ref)d			(ref)d
White Irish	496	88.6	0.71	0.55–0.92	.01	0.76	0.58–0.99	.04
Any other White background	712	90.6	0.88	0.69–1.12	.30	0.98	0.77–1.26	.90
White & Black Caribbean	45	81.8	0.41	0.21–0.82	.01	0.48	0.24–0.97	.04
White & Black African	19	86.4	0.58	0.17–1.96	.38	0.63	0.18–2.16	.46
White & Asian	57	87.7	0.65	0.31–1.37	.26	0.78	0.37–1.66	.52
Any other Mixed background	52	88.1	0.68	0.31–1.50	.34	0.80	0.36–1.77	.58
Indian	304	82.6	0.44	0.33–0.57	<.001	0.48	0.36–0.64	<.001
Pakistani	121	83.5	0.46	0.30–0.72	.001	0.53	0.34–0.82	.01
Bangladeshi	23	69.7	0.21	0.10–0.44	<.001	0.27	0.13–0.58	.001
Any other Asian background	138	87.3	0.63	0.40–1.01	.06	0.75	0.46–1.20	.23
Caribbean	229	82.4	0.43	0.31–0.58	<.001	0.50	0.36–0.68	<.001
African	184	84.4	0.50	0.34–0.72	<.001	0.61	0.42–0.89	.01
Any other Black background	24	92.3	1.01	0.26–4.65	.90	1.32	0.31–5.65	.71
Chinese	93	86.1	0.57	0.33–0.99	.05	0.65	0.37–1.28	.12
Any other ethnic group	60	81.1	0.40	0.22–0.71	<.001	0.48	0.16–0.87	.02
(b) Received an understandable answer from a doctore
Broad ethnic category
White	27,962	83.5	(ref)c		(ref)c
Mixed	135	75.0	0.60	0.42–0.83	.003	0.64	0.45–0.91	.01
Asian or Asian British	427	69.3	0.45	0.38–0.53	<.001	0.49	0.41–0.59	<.001
Black or Black British	312	75.9	0.63	0.50–0.79	<.001	0.72	0.57–0.91	.01
Chinese	68	70.8	0.48	0.31–0.75	.001	0.51	0.32–0.81	.004
Any other ethnic group	55	84.6	1.09	0.56–2.14	.80	1.43	0.72–2.85	.31
Ethnic sub-category
White British	27,007	83.5	(ref)d			(ref)d
White Irish	407	84.3	1.06	0.83–1.36	.65	1.11	0.86–1.42	.43
Any other White background	548	80.5	0.81	0.67–0.99	.04	0.88	0.72–1.07	.20
White & Black Caribbean	37	69.8	0.46	0.25–0.82	.01	0.49	0.27–0.89	.02
White & Black African	16	76.2	0.63	0.23–1.73	.37	0.68	0.24–1.89	.46
White & Asian	49	79.0	0.75	0.40–1.37	.35	0.84	0.45–1.58	.59
Any other Mixed background	33	75.0	0.59	0.30–1.17	.13	0.62	0.31–1.24	.18
Indian	226	71.8	0.50	0.39–0.64	<.001	0.53	0.41–0.59	<.001
Pakistani	97	68.8	0.44	0.31–0.62	<.001	0.49	0.34–0.71	<.001
Bangladeshi	11	33.3	0.12	0.05–0.20	<.001	0.14	0.07–0.30	<.001
Any other Asian background	93	73.2	0.54	0.36–0.80	.002	0.58	0.40–0.88	.01
Caribbean	165	73.3	0.54	0.40–0.73	<.001	0.64	0.47–0.87	.004
African	132	78.6	0.73	0.50–1.05	.09	0.81	0.55–1.18	.27
Any other Black background	15	83.3	0.99	0.29–3.41	.99	1.28	0.36–4.54	.70
Chinese	68	70.8	0.48	0.31–0.75	.001	0.51	0.32–0.81	.004
Any other ethnic group	55	84.6	1.09	0.56–2.14	.80	1.43	0.72–2.85	.31
(c) Received an understandable answer from a ward nursef
Broad ethnic category
White	24,144	75.9	(ref)c			(ref)c
Mixed	129	73.7	0.89	0.64–1.25	.50	0.99	0.70–1.40	.964
Asian or Asian British	370	61.9	0.52	0.44–0.61	<.001	0.60	0.50–0.71	<.001
Black or Black British	262	65.7	0.61	0.49–0.75	<.001	0.73	0.59–0.91	.01
Chinese	60	59.4	0.46	0.31–0.69	<.001	0.53	0.35–0.79	.002
Any other ethnic group	46	71.9	0.81	0.47–1.40	.45	1.14	0.65–2.00	.64
Ethnic sub-category
White British	23,319	76.0	(ref)d			(ref)d
White Irish	343	75.4	0.97	0.78–1.20	.77	1.04	0.83–1.29	.76
Any other White background	482	73.7	0.87	0.74–1.06	.18	1.01	0.84–1.21	.91
White & Black Caribbean	37	71.2	0.78	0.43–1.42	.42	0.85	0.46–1.56	.60
White & Black African	13	72.2	0.82	0.30–2.31	.71	0.85	0.30–2.44	.77
White & Asian	48	80.0	1.27	0.67–2.38	.47	1.48	0.77–1.51	.23
Any other Mixed background	31	68.9	0.70	0.37–1.32	.27	0.79	0.41–1.51	.48
Indian	194	62.8	0.53	0.42–0.67	<.001	0.62	0.48–0.79	<.001
Pakistani	83	61.0	0.50	0.35–0.70	<.001	0.57	0.40–0.81	.002
Bangladeshi	10	34.5	0.16	0.08–0.36	<.001	0.24	0.11–0.52	<.001
Any other Asian background	83	67.0	0.64	0.44–0.93	.02	0.75	0.51–1.10	.14
Caribbean	139	65.9	0.61	0.46–0.81	.001	0.76	0.57–1.03	.07
African	111	65.7	0.61	0.44–0.83	.002	0.70	0.50–0.97	.04
Any other Black background	12	63.2	0.54	0.31–0.69	<.001	0.69	0.26–1.79	.44
Chinese	60	59.4	0.46	0.31–0.69	<.001	0.53	0.35–0.79	.002
Any other ethnic group	46	71.9	0.81	0.47–1.40	.45	1.14	0.65–2.00	.64

Note: Significant associations (p < .05) are highlighted in bold.

^aAdjusted for age, gender, long-standing condition, time since first treatment, tumour group, patient classification, response to treatment, IMD quintile, Trust location (in/outside Greater London) and Trust.

^bAnalysis was restricted to 40,880 respondents and excluded patients who did not respond to Q24 (n = 18,931) or had missing data for age, gender, ethnicity, time since first treatment, long-standing condition status, response to treatment or IMD quintile (n = 8926). According to the likelihood ratio test, the model using ethnic sub-categories was not significantly better (at 95% confidence level) than the model using broad categories according to the likelihood ratio test (χ ²(10) = 12.80, p = .24).

^cFor comparisons by broad ethnic categories, the reference group was White patients.

^dFor comparisons by ethnic sub-categories, the reference group was White British patients.

^eAnalysis was restricted to 34,877 respondents and excluded patients who did not respond to Q37 (n = 26,507) or had missing data for age, gender, ethnicity, time since first treatment, long-standing condition status, response to treatment or IMD quintile (n = 7353). According to the likelihood ratio test, the model using ethnic sub-categories was significantly better (at 95% confidence level) than the model using broad categories according to the likelihood ratio test (χ ²(10) = 18.06, p = .05).

^fAnalysis was restricted to 33,138 respondents and excluded patients who did not respond to Q41 (n = 28,685) or had missing data for age, gender, ethnicity, time since first treatment, long-standing condition status, response to treatment or IMD quintile (n = 6914). According to the likelihood ratio test, the model using ethnic sub-categories was not significantly better (at 95% confidence level) than the model using broad categories according to the likelihood ratio test (χ²(10) = 9.74, p = 0.47).