Analyzing a randomized trial on breast self-examination with noncompliance and missing outcomes

Recently, instrumental variables methods have been used to address non-compliance in randomized experiments. Complicating such analyses is often the presence of missing data. The standard model for missing data, missing at random (MAR), has some unattractive features in this context. In this paper we compare MAR-based estimates of the complier average causal effect (CACE) with an estimator based on an alternative, nonignorable model for the missing data process, developed by Frangakis and Rubin (1999, Biometrika, 86, 365-379). We also introduce a new missing data model that, like the Frangakis-Rubin model, is specially suited for models with instrumental variables, but makes different substantive assumptions. We analyze these issues in the context of a randomized trial of breast self-examination (BSE). In the study two methods of teaching BSE, consisting of either mailed information about BSE (the standard treatment) or the attendance of a course involving theoretical and practical sessions (the new treatment), were compared with the aim of assessing whether teaching programs could increase BSE practice and improve examination skills. The study was affected by the two sources of bias mentioned above: only 55% of women assigned to receive the new treatment complied with their assignment and 35% of the women did not respond to the post-test questionnaire. Comparing the causal estimand of the new treatment using the MAR, Frangakis-Rubin, and our new approach, the results suggest that for these data the MAR assumption appears least plausible, and that the new model appears most plausible among the three choices.     

Assessing the effect of an influenza vaccine in an encouragement design

Many randomized experiments suffer from noncompliance. Some of these experiments, so-called encouragement designs, can be expected to have especially large amounts of noncompliance, because encouragement to take the treatment rather than the treatment itself is randomly assigned to individuals. We present an extended framework for the analysis of data from such experiments with a binary treatment, binary encouragement, and background covariates. There are two key features of this framework: we use an instrumental variables approach to link intention-to-treat effects to treatment effects and we adopt a Bayesian approach for inference and sensitivity analysis. This framework is illustrated in a medical example concerning the effects of inoculation for influenza. In this example, the analyses suggest that positive estimates of the intention-to-treat effect need not be due to the treatment itself, but rather to the encouragement to take the treatment: the intention-to-treat effect for the subpopulation who would be inoculated whether or not encouraged is estimated to be approximately as large as the intention-to-treat effect for the subpopulation whose inoculation status would agree with their (randomized) encouragement status whether or not encouraged. Thus, our methods suggest that global intention-to-treat estimates, although often regarded as conservative, can be too coarse and even misleading when taken as summarizing the evidence in the data for the effects of treatments.     

Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects

Estimation of average treatment effects under unconfounded orignorable treatment assignment is often hampered by lack ofoverlap in the covariate distributions between treatment groups.This lack of overlap can lead to imprecise estimates, and canmake commonly used estimators sensitive to the choice of specification.In such cases researchers have often used ad hoc methods fortrimming the sample. We develop a systematic approach to addressinglack of overlap. We characterize optimal subsamples for whichthe average treatment effect can be estimated most precisely.Under some conditions, the optimal selection rules depend solelyon the propensity score. For a wide range of distributions,a good approximation to the optimal rule is provided by thesimple rule of thumb to discard all units with estimated propensityscores outside the range [0.1,0.9].