Objectives To examine patterns of PCA reporting for Informed Dissent and Patient Unsuitable, how they vary by ethnic group, and whether ethnic inequities can be explained by socio-demographic factors or comorbidities. Design A retrospective study using routinely collected electronic health records. Setting Individual patient data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink collected from UK general practice. Participants Patients with at least one of the 12 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) conditions which had PCA coding options from a random sample of 690,00 patients aged 18+ years on the 1st of Jan 2016. Main outcomes measures The associations between ethnicity and two PCA reasons (Informed Dissent and Patient Unsuitable) were examined using logistic regressions after adjustment for age, sex, multiple QOF conditions and area-level deprivation. Results The association between ethnicity and the two PCA reasons were in opposite directions. After accounting for age, gender, multiple QOF conditions and area-level deprivation, people of Bangladeshi [OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.87], Black African [OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.81] , Black Caribbean, OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.76], Indian [OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.83], mixed [OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.99], other Asian [OR: 0.74 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.86] and other ethnicity [OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.80] were less likely to have a PCA record for Informed Dissent than people of white ethnicity. Only people of Indian ethnicity were significantly less likely than people of white ethnicity to have a PCA record for Patient Unsuitable in fully adjusted models [OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.94]. We found ethnic inequities in PCA reporting for Patient Unsuitable among people of Black Caribbean, Black other, Pakistani, and other ethnicity, but these attenuated after adjusting for multiple QOF conditions and/or area level deprivation. Conclusion Study findings counter the narratives that suggest that people from minoritised ethnic groups often refuse medical intervention. They illuminate the complex relationship between Informed Dissent and (dis)empowerment which requires further scrutiny. They also show ethnic inequalities in PCA reporting for Patient Unsuitable that are linked to clinical and social complexity and should be tackled to improve health outcomes for all.

MS and JH are employed by The Health Foundation. The authors have no competing interest to declare.

This work is funded by The Health Foundation (AIMS 1874695).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study is part of a wider project investigating ethnic inequities in health care use and care quality among people with multiple conditions. Ethics committee/IRB of University of Sussex gave ethical approval for this project. The study was reviewed for ethical and methods content and approved by the CPRD team (eRAP protocol number 21_000333).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

This study uses routinely collected individual patient data which can be obtained from Clinical Research Practice Datalink subject to protocol approval via the CPRD Research Data Governance Process. Although these data are anonymised, they are considered sensitive data in the UK by the Data Protection Act and, therefore, cannot be shared publicly. Information about applying to use CPRD data can be found at https://www.cprd.com/data-access.