IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i3d10.1007_s40258-018-0380-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Treatment Effect Estimates When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous for More Than One Outcome

Author

Listed:
  • John M. Brooks

    (University of South Carolina and the Center for Effectiveness Research in Orthopaedics)

  • Cole G. Chapman

    (University of South Carolina and the Center for Effectiveness Research in Orthopaedics)

  • Mary C. Schroeder

    (University of Iowa College of Pharmacy)

Abstract

Background Patient-centred care requires evidence of treatment effects across many outcomes. Outcomes can be beneficial (e.g. increased survival or cure rates) or detrimental (e.g. adverse events, pain associated with treatment, treatment costs, time required for treatment). Treatment effects may also be heterogeneous across outcomes and across patients. Randomized controlled trials are usually insufficient to supply evidence across outcomes. Observational data analysis is an alternative, with the caveat that the treatments observed are choices. Real-world treatment choice often involves complex assessment of expected effects across the array of outcomes. Failure to account for this complexity when interpreting treatment effect estimates could lead to clinical and policy mistakes. Objective Our objective was to assess the properties of treatment effect estimates based on choice when treatments have heterogeneous effects on both beneficial and detrimental outcomes across patients. Methods Simulation methods were used to highlight the sensitivity of treatment effect estimates to the distributions of treatment effects across patients across outcomes. Scenarios with alternative correlations between benefit and detriment treatment effects across patients were used. Regression and instrumental variable estimators were applied to the simulated data for both outcomes. Results True treatment effect parameters are sensitive to the relationships of treatment effectiveness across outcomes in each study population. In each simulation scenario, treatment effect estimate interpretations for each outcome are aligned with results shown previously in single outcome models, but these estimates vary across simulated populations with the correlations of treatment effects across patients across outcomes. Conclusions If estimator assumptions are valid, estimates across outcomes can be used to assess the optimality of treatment rates in a study population. However, because true treatment effect parameters are sensitive to correlations of treatment effects across outcomes, decision makers should be cautious about generalizing estimates to other populations.

Suggested Citation

  • John M. Brooks & Cole G. Chapman & Mary C. Schroeder, 2018. "Understanding Treatment Effect Estimates When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous for More Than One Outcome," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 381-393, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0380-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0380-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0380-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0380-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016064.
    2. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107638105.
    3. Joshua D. Angrist, 2004. "Treatment effect heterogeneity in theory and practice," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(494), pages 52-83, March.
    4. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016057.
    5. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    6. Elizabeth A. Stuart & Anna Rhodes, 2017. "Generalizing Treatment Effect Estimates From Sample to Population: A Case Study in the Difficulties of Finding Sufficient Data," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(4), pages 357-388, August.
    7. James J. Heckman & Sergio Urzua & Edward Vytlacil, 2006. "Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 389-432, August.
    8. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107674165.
    9. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157.
    10. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107627314.
    11. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016040.
    12. Lohr, Kathleen N. & Eleazer, Kristen & Mauskopf, Josephine, 1998. "Health policy issues and applications for evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-19, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moler-Zapata, S.; & Grieve, R.; & Basu, A.; & O'Neill, S.;, 2022. "How does a local Instrumental Variable Method perform across settings with instruments of differing strengths? A simulation study and an evaluation of emergency surgery," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/18, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    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. Chen, Xuan & Flores, Carlos A. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso, 2015. "Going Beyond LATE: Bounding Average Treatment Effects of Job Corps Training," IZA Discussion Papers 9511, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Pedro Carneiro & Michael Lokshin & Nithin Umapathi, 2017. "Average and Marginal Returns to Upper Secondary Schooling in Indonesia," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 16-36, January.
    3. Denis Fougère & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2020. "Policy Evaluation Using Causal Inference Methods," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03455978, HAL.
    4. Beerli, Andreas & Weiss, Franziska J. & Zilibotti, Fabrizio & Zweimüller, Josef, 2020. "Demand forces of technical change evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Kaufmann, Cornel & Schmid, Christian & Boes, Stefan, 2017. "Health insurance subsidies and deductible choice: Evidence from regional variation in subsidy schemes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 262-273.
    6. Kaspar Wüthrich, 2020. "A Comparison of Two Quantile Models With Endogeneity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 443-456, April.
    7. Jean-Francois Maystadt & Muhammad Kabir Salihu, 2015. "National or political cake?," Working Papers 100756558, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    8. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2021. "Answering causal questions using observational data," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2021-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    9. Elsby, Michael W.L. & Hobijn, Bart & Şahin, Ayşegül, 2015. "On the importance of the participation margin for labor market fluctuations," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 64-82.
    10. Wen Xu, 2016. "Estimation of Dynamic Panel Data Models with Stochastic Volatility Using Particle Filters," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Özgür Orhangazi & A. Erinç Yeldan, 2021. "The Re‐making of the Turkish Crisis," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(3), pages 460-503, May.
    12. Alessandra Bonfiglioli & Rosario Crinò & Gino Gancia, 2018. "Firms and Economic Performance: A view from Trade," Working Papers 1034, Barcelona School of Economics.
    13. Guriev, Sergei & Treisman, Daniel, 2020. "A theory of informational autocracy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates & Giammario Impullitti, 2018. "Innovation and Trade Policy in a Globalized World," NBER Working Papers 24543, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Daron Acemoglu & Gino Gancia & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2015. "Offshoring and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 84-122, July.
    16. Makoto Shimoji, 2016. "Rationalizable Persuasion," Discussion Papers 16/08, Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. Guerini, Mattia & Moneta, Alessio & Napoletano, Mauro & Roventini, Andrea, 2020. "The Janus-Faced Nature Of Debt: Results From A Data-Driven Cointegrated Svar Approach," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 24-54, January.
    18. Ivan Balbuzanov, 2019. "Lies and consequences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(4), pages 1203-1240, December.
    19. Raphael Corbi & Fabio Miessi Sanches, 2022. "Church Competition, Religious Subsidies and the Rise of Evangelicalism: a Dynamic Structural Analysis," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2022_09, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    20. Shirai, Daichi, 2016. "Persistence and Amplification of Financial Frictions," MPRA Paper 72187, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0380-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.