IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/25049.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Behavior within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda E. Kowalski

Abstract

I unite the economics and medical literatures by examining behavior within a clinical trial to inform treatment guidelines. I use data from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, an influential clinical trial on mammography. During the active study period of the trial, a substantial fraction of women in the control group received mammograms, and some women in the intervention group did not. Using this mammography behavior, random assignment within the trial, and a standard model from the economics literature, I divide participants into three groups that differ in how likely they are to receive mammograms. Making comparisons across these groups, I find two important relationships. First, I find heterogeneous selection into mammography: women more likely to receive mammograms are healthier. I find this relationship using a marginal treatment effect model that assumes no more than the local average treatment effect assumptions. Second, I find treatment effect heterogeneity along the margin of selection into mammography: women more likely to receive mammograms are more likely to experience harm from them. I find this relationship using an ancillary assumption that builds on the first empirical relationship. I find additional empirical support for the ancillary assumption using baseline covariates. My findings contribute to the literature concerned about harms from mammography by demonstrating variation across the margin of selection into mammography. This variation is problematic for current mammography guidelines for women in their 40s because it implies that they unintentionally encourage mammography for healthier women who are more likely to experience harm from them.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda E. Kowalski, 2018. "Behavior within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines," NBER Working Papers 25049, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:25049
    Note: AG HC HE LS PE TWP
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w25049.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.

    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. Black, Dan A. & Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Taylor, Evan J., 2015. "Simple Tests for Selection Bias: Learning More from Instrumental Variables," IZA Discussion Papers 9346, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    2. Willis, Robert J & Rosen, Sherwin, 1979. "Education and Self-Selection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(5), pages 7-36, October.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 1997. "Monotone Treatment Response," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(6), pages 1311-1334, November.
    4. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2018. "Reconciling Seemingly Contradictory Results from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment and the Massachusetts Health Reform," NBER Working Papers 24647, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Amanda Kowalski, 2016. "Doing more when you're running LATE: Applying marginal treatment effect methods to examine treatment effect heterogeneity in experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00560, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    7. Kadiyala Srikanth & Strumpf Erin, 2016. "How Effective is Population-Based Cancer Screening? Regression Discontinuity Estimates from the US Guideline Screening Initiation Ages," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 87-139, June.
    8. Marinho Bertanha & Guido W. Imbens, 2014. "External Validity in Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity Designs," NBER Working Papers 20773, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Mark R. Cullen, 2010. "Estimating Welfare in Insurance Markets Using Variation in Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 125(3), pages 877-921.
    10. Olsen, Randall J, 1980. "A Least Squares Correction for Selectivity Bias," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(7), pages 1815-1820, November.
    11. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    12. Huber, Martin, 2013. "A simple test for the ignorability of non-compliance in experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 389-391.
    13. Joshua D. Angrist, 2004. "Treatment effect heterogeneity in theory and practice," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(494), pages 52-83, March.
    14. Zanella, Giulio & Banerjee, Ritesh, 2016. "Experiencing breast cancer at the workplace," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 53-66.
    15. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    16. Abadie, Alberto, 2003. "Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 231-263, April.
    17. Lawrence F. Katz & Jeffrey R. Kling & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 2001. "Moving to Opportunity in Boston: Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 607-654.
    18. Carneiro, Pedro & Lee, Sokbae, 2009. "Estimating distributions of potential outcomes using local instrumental variables with an application to changes in college enrollment and wage inequality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 191-208, April.
    19. Rebecca Mary Myerson & Darius Lakdawalla & Lisandro D. Colantonio & Monika Safford & David Meltzer, 2018. "Effects of Expanding Health Screening on Treatment - What Should We Expect? What Can We Learn?," NBER Working Papers 24347, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Thomas C. Buchmueller & Léontine Goldzahl, 2018. "The Effect of Organized Breast Cancer Screening on Mammography Use: Evidence from France," NBER Working Papers 24316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Magne Mogstad & Andres Santos & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2017. "Using Instrumental Variables for Inference about Policy Relevant Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23568, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. repec:ucp:jpolec:doi:10.1086/692712 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Cutler, David M. & Lleras-Muney, Adriana, 2010. "Understanding differences in health behaviors by education," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-28, January.
    24. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    25. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2016. "Doing More When You're Running LATE: Applying Marginal Treatment Effect Methods to Examine Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Experiments for the Young and Privately Insured?," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2045, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    26. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    27. Joshua D. Angrist, 1998. "Estimating the Labor Market Impact of Voluntary Military Service Using Social Security Data on Military Applicants," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 249-288, March.
    28. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2018. "How to Examine External Validity Within an Experiment," NBER Working Papers 24834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Guido W. Imbens & Donald B. Rubin, 1997. "Estimating Outcome Distributions for Compliers in Instrumental Variables Models," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 555-574.
    30. Abadie A., 2002. "Bootstrap Tests for Distributional Treatment Effects in Instrumental Variable Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 284-292, March.
    31. repec:eee:jhecon:v:53:y:2017:i:c:p:100-116 is not listed on IDEAS
    32. Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:25049. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.