IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0127227.html

Accounting for Behavior in Treatment Effects: New Applications for Blind Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvain Chassang
  • Erik Snowberg
  • Ben Seymour
  • Cayley Bowles

Abstract

The double-blind randomized controlled trial (DBRCT) is the gold standard of medical research. We show that DBRCTs fail to fully account for the efficacy of treatment if there are interactions between treatment and behavior, for example, if a treatment is more effective when patients change their exercise or diet. Since behavioral or placebo effects depend on patients’ beliefs that they are receiving treatment, clinical trials with a single probability of treatment are poorly suited to estimate the additional treatment benefit that arises from such interactions. Here, we propose methods to identify interaction effects, and use those methods in a meta-analysis of data from blinded anti-depressant trials in which participant-level data was available. Out of six eligible studies, which included three for the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor paroxetine, and three for the tricyclic imipramine, three studies had a high (>65%) probability of treatment. We found strong evidence that treatment probability affected the behavior of trial participants, specifically the decision to drop out of a trial. In the case of paroxetine, but not imipramine, there was an interaction between treatment and behavioral changes that enhanced the effectiveness of the drug. These data show that standard blind trials can fail to account for the full value added when there are interactions between a treatment and behavior. We therefore suggest that a new trial design, two-by-two blind trials, will better account for treatment efficacy when interaction effects may be important.

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvain Chassang & Erik Snowberg & Ben Seymour & Cayley Bowles, 2015. "Accounting for Behavior in Treatment Effects: New Applications for Blind Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127227
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127227
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127227&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0127227?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. 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.
    2. Tat Y. Chan & Barton H. Hamilton, 2006. "Learning, Private Information, and the Economic Evaluation of Randomized Experiments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(6), pages 997-1040, December.
    3. Christopher B. Barrett & Michael R. Carter, 2010. "The Power and Pitfalls of Experiments in Development Economics: Some Non-random Reflections," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(4), pages 515-548.
    4. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Moulton, Brent R, 1990. "An Illustration of a Pitfall in Estimating the Effects of Aggregate Variables on Micro Unit," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(2), pages 334-338, May.
    7. Anup Malani, 2006. "Identifying Placebo Effects with Data from Clinical Trials," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 236-256, April.
    8. Erwin Bulte & Gonne Beekman & Salvatore Di Falco & Joseph Hella & Pan Lei, 2014. "Behavioral Responses and the Impact of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Double-blind Field Experiment in Tanzania," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 813-830.
    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. Abhijit Banerjee & Sylvain Chassang & Erik Snowberg, 2016. "Decision Theoretic Approaches to Experiment Design and External Validity," NBER Working Papers 22167, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Marcelo Arbex & Justin M. Carre & Shawn N. Geniole & Enlinson Mattos, 2018. "Testosterone, personality traits and tax evasion," Working Papers 1801, University of Windsor, Department of Economics.
    3. Bulte, Erwin & Di Falco, Salvatore & Lensink, Robert, 2020. "Randomized interventions and “real” treatment effects: A cautionary tale and an example," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Hennessy, Christopher A. & Chemla, Gilles, 2022. "Signaling, instrumentation, and CFO decision-making," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 849-863.
    5. Chemla, Gilles & Hennessy, Christopher A., 2019. "Controls, belief updating, and bias in medical RCTs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. Arbex, Marcelo Aarestru & Carré, Justin M. & Geniole, Shawn N. & Mattos, Enlinson, 2018. "Tax evasion, testosterone and personality traits," Textos para discussão 466, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    7. Hippolyte d'Albis & Johanna Etner & Josselin Thuilliez, 2023. "Vaccination under pessimistic expectations in clinical trials and immunization campaigns," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(6), pages 1188-1211, December.

    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. Jose M. Fernandez, 2013. "An Empirical Model Of Learning Under Ambiguity: The Case Of Clinical Trials," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(2), pages 549-573, May.
    2. Gani Aldashev & Georg Kirchsteiger & Alexander Sebald, 2017. "Assignment Procedure Biases in Randomised Policy Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(602), pages 873-895, June.
    3. Chemla, Gilles & Hennessy, Christopher A., 2019. "Controls, belief updating, and bias in medical RCTs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    4. Rok Spruk & Mitja Kovac, 2018. "Inefficient Growth," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 9(2).
    5. Klishchuk Bogdan & Zelenyuk Valentin, 2012. "Impact of Services LIberalization on Firm Level Productivity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," EERC Working Paper Series 12/03e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    6. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Toward an Ethical Experiment," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Thierry Lallemand & Robert Plasman & François Rycx, 2008. "Women and Competition in Elimination Tournaments," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 9(1), pages 3-19, February.
    8. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    9. Robert Plasman & François Rycx & Ilan Tojerow, 2006. "Industry wage differentials, unobserved ability, and rent-sharing: evidence from matched employer-employee, 1992-2005," DULBEA Working Papers 06-14.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Experiment-as-Market: Incorporating Welfare into Randomized Controlled Trials," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127r, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2019.
    11. James R. Stevenson & Karen Macours & Douglas Gollin, 2023. "The Rigor Revolution: New Standards of Evidence for Impact Assessment of International Agricultural Research," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 15(1), pages 495-515, October.
    12. 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.
    13. David H. Dean & Robert C. Dolan & Robert M. Schmidt, 1999. "Evaluating the Vocational Rehabilitation Program Using Longitudinal Data," Evaluation Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 162-189, April.
    14. Antoni, Manfred, 2011. "Lifelong learning inequality? The relevance of family background for on-the-job training," IAB-Discussion Paper 201109, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    15. Mitja Kovac & Salvini Datta & Rok Spruk, 2021. "Pharmaceutical Product Liability, Litigation Regimes, and the Propensity to Patent: An Empirical Firm-Level Investigation," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    16. Martin Halla & Friedrich Schneider & Alexander Wagner, 2013. "Satisfaction with democracy and collective action problems: the case of the environment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 109-137, April.
    17. Arne Henningsen & Guy Low & David Wuepper & Tobias Dalhaus & Hugo Storm & Dagim Belay & Stefan Hirsch, 2024. "Estimating Causal Effects with Observational Data: Guidelines for Agricultural and Applied Economists," IFRO Working Paper 2024/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Hübler, Olaf, 2014. "Estimation of standard errors and treatment effects in empirical economics : methods and applications," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 47(1-2), pages 43-62.
    19. Brewer, Mike & Crossley, Thomas F. & Zilio, Federico, 2019. "What Do We Really Know about the Employment Effects of the UK's National Minimum Wage?," IZA Discussion Papers 12369, IZA Network @ LISER.
    20. Stefanie Behncke, 2012. "How Do Shocks to Non-Cognitive Skills Affect Test Scores?," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 107-108, pages 155-173.

    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:plo:pone00:0127227. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.