.jpg)
Digital transformation has reshaped how organisationscommunicate with customers. Emails, portals, chatbots and automated phonesystems promise speed and efficiency. But for many people living with healthconditions, financial stress, disability or digital exclusion, these systemsdon’t simplify life, they make it harder.
Recent qualitative research by Field Locker explores thelived experiences of people in vulnerable circumstances and how they experienceeveryday communication with essential service providers. The findings reveal agrowing gap between how organisations design communication and how people areactually able to understand, process and respond to it.
The Reality Behind “Digital First”
Participants were clear: the issue is not a resistance todigital communication. Many are articulate, capable and willing to engage. Theproblem is that digital‑first communication often assumeslevels of time, confidence, cognitive capacity and emotional resilience thatpeople do not always have.
Email‑only contact, screen‑heavyinformation and complex online pathways frequently create confusion rather thanclarity. Once misunderstandings occur, rigid systems often fail to recognisethe root cause, leaving individuals feeling blamed rather than supported. Forthose already managing illness, disability or stress, this can quickly becomeoverwhelming.
What People Actually Need from Organisations
Across interviews, several consistent themes emerged aboutwhat “good” communication looks like:
Choice and flexibility matter. No single channel works allthe time. Capacity can fluctuate day to day due to mental health, fatigue orcognitive load. People want options, email, phone, letter or chat and for theirstated preferences to be respected.
Plain English reduces stress. Participants strongly prefercommunication that is clear, concise and easy to scan. Long, jargon‑heavymessages or multi‑page documents create unnecessary cognitive burden,particularly when only one action is required.
Human access is essential when it matters. Automation istolerated for simple, low‑risk tasks, but becomes a barrierwhen it blocks access to a real person. Forced yes/no pathways and longautomated menus often drain mental energy before any help is reached.
Acknowledgement builds trust. A same‑dayconfirmation that a message has been received can significantly reduce anxiety,even if resolution takes longer. Silence, vague timeframes or missed callbacksquickly erode trust and engagement.
Where Communication Breaks Down
Participants described repeated frustrations that cut acrosssectors:
· Poorly timed and intrusivecontact, especially unscheduled phone calls
· Slow or unclear responsewindows such as “three to five working days”
· Having to repeatedlyexplain vulnerabilities because information isn’t carried through
· Lack of continuity, notesor accessible records of previous interactions
These issues don’t just cause inconvenience. They have anemotional impact. People described feeling insignificant, powerless andundervalued when communication fails, with some disengaging entirely to protecttheir wellbeing, even when issues remain unresolved.
Respect Is Shown in Small Things
Interestingly, respectful communication wasn’t defined bygrand policies or formal language. It was demonstrated through small, practicalbehaviours:
· Checking communicationpreferences at the start of an interaction
· Reviewing interactionhistory before asking someone to repeat themselves
· Providing advance notice ofphone calls
· Using simple layouts, clearpriorities and accessible formats
· Allowing staff to movebeyond rigid scripts when nuance is needed
These actions signal recognition and care, reducing frictionand cognitive effort.
Concerns About AI and Automation
AI and automated systems triggered particularly strongresponses. While some participants acknowledged benefits such as 24/7 access orfiltering simple queries, acceptance was always conditional.
The greatest concern was loss of nuance. Participantsdescribed situations where automated triage deprioritised serious health issuesor prevented them from explaining urgency.
Lack of transparency about how AI makes decisions and wherepersonal data goes increased anxiety, especially for those already feelingvulnerable.
The message was consistent: AI should support humanjudgement, not replace it. Trust, safety and dignity depend on clear escalationpaths and continued access to real people.
The Bottom Line for Organisations
The biggest gap identified in the research is betweenefficiency‑led communication design and real‑worldhuman capacity under stress, illness, disability or financial strain.
The highest‑impact improvements are notcomplex or expensive:
· Plain English
· Timely acknowledgement
· Genuine channel choice
· Basic record‑keepingand continuity
· Easy escalation to humans
Organisations that design communication around assumedcapability risk unintentionally excluding the very people they aim to serve.Those that design around human capacity protect trust, dignity and long‑termengagement, for everyone.
.svg)
