IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i6p711-719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sample Size and Power When Designing a Randomized Trial for the Estimation of Treatment, Selection, and Preference Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Robin M. Turner
  • Stephen D. Walter
  • Petra Macaskill
  • Kirsten J. McCaffery
  • Les Irwig

Abstract

Background. A 2-stage randomized trial design, incorporating participant choice, provides unbiased estimates of the effects of the treatment or intervention (treatment effect), the difference between outcomes for participants who prefer one treatment compared with another (selection effect), and the interaction between participants’ preferences for treatment and the treatment actually received (preference effect). It is important to ensure that such trials are adequately powered to estimate these effects. Sample Size Formulas. This paper presents methods for determining the required sample sizes for estimating treatment, selection, and preference effects. We demonstrate the changes in sample size as various key parameters are changed. In general, approximately twice as many participants (in total) are needed to have equivalent power for detecting both treatment and selection/preference effects compared with a trial of the treatment effect alone. Primary Screening Example. We illustrate their application for the design of a primary screening trial comparing human papillomavirus DNA testing versus cervical screening (by Pap smear). Our example would require 520 participants to have 80% power to detect moderate-sized preference and selection effects and a small to moderate treatment effect. Conclusions. With the growing interest in understanding treatment choices and with the use of decision aids, well-designed and adequately powered 2-stage randomized trial designs offer the opportunity to determine the effects of participants’ preferences. Our sample size formulas will help future studies ensure that they have adequate power to detect selection and preference effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin M. Turner & Stephen D. Walter & Petra Macaskill & Kirsten J. McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2014. "Sample Size and Power When Designing a Randomized Trial for the Estimation of Treatment, Selection, and Preference Effects," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 711-719, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:711-719
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14525264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14525264
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14525264?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Long, Qi & Little, Roderick J. & Lin, Xihong, 2008. "Causal Inference in Hybrid Intervention Trials Involving Treatment Choice," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 474-484, June.
    2. Janevic, Mary R. & Janz, Nancy K. & Dodge, Julia A. & Lin, Xihong & Pan, Wenqin & Sinco, Brandy R. & Clark, Noreen M., 2003. "The role of choice in health education intervention trials: a review and case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1581-1594, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daido Kido, 2023. "Incorporating Preferences Into Treatment Assignment Problems," Papers 2311.08963, arXiv.org.
    2. Takanori Ida & Takunori Ishihara & Koichiro Ito & Daido Kido & Toru Kitagawa & Shosei Sakaguchi & Shusaku Sasaki, 2022. "Choosing Who Chooses: Selection-Driven Targeting in Energy Rebate Programs," NBER Working Papers 30469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Takanori Ida & Takunori Ishihara & Koichiro Ito & Daido Kido & Toru Kitagawa & Shosei Sakaguchi & Shusaku Sasaki, 2021. "Paternalism, Autonomy, or Both? Experimental Evidence from Energy Saving Programs," Papers 2112.09850, arXiv.org.
    4. Qi Long & Roderick J. A. Little & Xihong Lin, 2010. "Estimating causal effects in trials involving multitreatment arms subject to non‐compliance: a Bayesian framework," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(3), pages 513-531, May.
    5. Wunsch, Conny & Strobl, Renate, 2018. "Identification of causal mechanisms based on between-subject double randomization designs," CEPR Discussion Papers 13028, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Robin Turner & Petra Macaskill & Stephen D. Walter & Siew Foong Chan & Les Irwig, 2011. "Determining the Impact of Informed Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 229-236, March.
    7. Renate Strobl & Conny Wunsch, 2021. "Risky choices and solidarity: disentangling different behavioural channels," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1185-1214, December.
    8. Strobl, Renate & Wunsch, Conny, 2018. "Risky Choices and Solidarity: Why Experimental Design Matters," Working papers 2018/17, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    9. Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig & Patrick Bossuyt, 2007. "Patient Decision Aids to Support Clinical Decision Making: Evaluating the Decision or the Outcomes of the Decision," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 619-625, September.
    10. Birthe Andrea Lehmann & Lara Lindert & Silke Ohlmeier & Lara Schlomann & Holger Pfaff & Kyung-Eun Choi, 2020. "“And Then He Got into the Wrong Group”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Effects of Randomization in Recruitment to a Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-16, March.
    11. Bower, Peter & King, Michael & Nazareth, Irwin & Lampe, Fiona & Sibbald, Bonnie, 2005. "Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 685-695, August.
    12. Roderick J. Little & Qi Long & Xihong Lin, 2009. "A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Causal Effect of a Treatment in Randomized Clinical Trials Subject to Noncompliance," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 640-649, June.
    13. Long, Qi & Little, Roderick J. & Lin, Xihong, 2008. "Causal Inference in Hybrid Intervention Trials Involving Treatment Choice," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 474-484, June.
    14. Onur Altindag & Theodore J. Joyce & Julie A. Reeder, 2019. "Can Nonexperimental Methods Provide Unbiased Estimates of a Breastfeeding Intervention? A Within-Study Comparison of Peer Counseling in Oregon," Evaluation Review, , vol. 43(3-4), pages 152-188, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:711-719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.