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). 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.

Analyzing a Randomized Trial on Breast Self Examination with Noncompliance and Missing Outcomes / F. MEALLI; G. IMBENS; S. FERRO; A. BIGGERI. - In: BIOSTATISTICS. - ISSN 1465-4644. - STAMPA. - 5(2):(2004), pp. 207-222.

Analyzing a Randomized Trial on Breast Self Examination with Noncompliance and Missing Outcomes

MEALLI, FABRIZIA;BIGGERI, ANNIBALE
2004

Abstract

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). 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.
2004
5(2)
207
222
F. MEALLI; G. IMBENS; S. FERRO; A. BIGGERI
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
mealli.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Tipologia: Versione finale referata (Postprint, Accepted manuscript)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 91.94 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
91.94 kB Adobe PDF   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/312997
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 66
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 56
social impact