Patient enrollment in medical trials: Selection bias in a randomized experiment
Self-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.
If 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.
References listed on IDEAS
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 & Honore, Bo E, 1990. "The Empirical Content of the Roy Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(5), pages 1121-49, September.
- 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.
- Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:144:y:2008:i:2:p:341-351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.