Patient enrollment in medical trials: Selection bias in a randomized experiment
AbstractSelf-selection can bias estimates of treatment effects from randomized experiments if one is interested in extrapolating results to the general population. This paper notes that there is an isomorphism between the Roy model for the sorting of workers into sectors and the decision of subjects to participate in randomized experiments. The main implication is that, as the probability of receiving active treatment rises, patients who are less optimistic about new treatment will begin to enroll and estimates of treatment effects will fall. This, in turn, implies that selection bias is positive. These findings are confirmed with data from trials of ulcer medications.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Econometrics.
Volume (Year): 144 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeconom
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Tomas Philipson, 1999.
"External Treatment Effects and Program Implementation Bias,"
9929, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.
- Tomas J. Philipson, 2000. "External Treatment Effects and Program Implementation Bias," NBER Technical Working Papers 0250, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Heckman, James J, 1996. "Randomization as an Instrumental Variable: Notes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 336-41, May.
- James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
- Heckman, James J & Honore, Bo E, 1990. "The Empirical Content of the Roy Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(5), pages 1121-49, September.
- Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
- Sylvain Chassang & Gerard Padro i Miquel & Erik Snowberg, 2010.
"Selective Trials: A Principal-Agent Approach to Randomized Controlled Experiments,"
NBER Working Papers
16343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Sylvain Chassang & Gerard Padro I Miquel & Erik Snowberg, 2012. "Selective Trials: A Principal-Agent Approach to Randomized Controlled Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1279-1309, June.
- Chassang, Sylvain & Padró i Miquel, Gerard & Snowberg, Erik, 2010. "Selective Trials: A Principal-Agent Approach to Randomized Controlled Experiments," CEPR Discussion Papers 8003, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Utteeyo Dasgupta & Lata Gangadharan & Pushkar Maitra & Subha Mani & Samyukta Subramanian, 2012.
"Choosing to be Trained: Evidence from a Field Experiment,"
Development Research Unit Working Paper Series
43-12, Monash University, Department of Economics.
- Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani & Lata Gangadharan & Pushkar Maitra & Samyukta Subramanian, 2012. "Choosing to be Trained: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2012_01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
- Belot, Michele & James, J, 2014. "A New Perspective on the Issue of Selection Bias into Randomized Controlled Field Experiments," Department of Economics Working Papers 39843, University of Bath, Department of Economics.
- Anup Malani & Tomas J. Philipson, 2011. "Can Medical Progress be Sustained? Implications of the Link Between Development and Output Markets," NBER Working Papers 17011, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.