Does mother know best? Treatment adherence as a function of anticipated treatment benefit

M. Maria Glymour, Quynh C. Nguyen, Roland Matsouaka, Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen, Nicole M. Schmidt, Theresa L. Osypuk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: We describe bias resulting from individualized treatment selection, which occurs when treatment has heterogeneous effects and individuals selectively choose treatments of greatest benefit to themselves. This pernicious bias may confound estimates from observational studies and lead to important misinterpretation of intent-to-treat analyses of randomized trials. Despite the potentially serious threat to inferences, individualized treatment selection has rarely been formally described or assessed. Methods: The Moving To Opportunity trial randomly assigned subsidized rental vouchers to low-income families in high-poverty public housing. We assessed the Kessler-6 psychological distress and Behavior Problems Index outcomes for 2,829 adolescents 4-7 years after randomization. Among families randomly assigned to receive vouchers, we estimated probability of moving (treatment), predicted by prerandomization characteristics (c statistic = 0.63). We categorized families into tertiles of this estimated probability of moving, and compared instrumental variable effect estimates for moving on behavior problems index and Kessler-6 across tertiles. Results: Instrumental variable estimated effects of moving on behavioral problems index were most adverse for boys least likely to move (b = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 1.53) compared with boys most likely to move (b = 0.14; 95% confidence interval: -0.15, 0.44; P = 0.02 for treatment × tertile interaction). Effects on Kessler-6 were more beneficial for girls least likely to move compared with girls most likely to move (-0.62 vs. 0.02; interaction; P = 0.03). Conclusions: Evidence of individualized treatment selection differed by child gender and outcome and should be evaluated in randomized trial reports, especially when heterogeneous treatment effects are likely and nonadherence is common.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)265-275
Number of pages11
JournalEpidemiology
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 28 2016

Fingerprint

Mothers
Therapeutics
Public Housing
Confidence Intervals
Poverty
Random Allocation
Observational Studies
Psychology
Problem Behavior

Cite this

Does mother know best? Treatment adherence as a function of anticipated treatment benefit. / Glymour, M. Maria; Nguyen, Quynh C.; Matsouaka, Roland; Tchetgen, Eric J Tchetgen; Schmidt, Nicole M.; Osypuk, Theresa L.

In: Epidemiology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 28.01.2016, p. 265-275.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Glymour, M. Maria ; Nguyen, Quynh C. ; Matsouaka, Roland ; Tchetgen, Eric J Tchetgen ; Schmidt, Nicole M. ; Osypuk, Theresa L. / Does mother know best? Treatment adherence as a function of anticipated treatment benefit. In: Epidemiology. 2016 ; Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 265-275.
@article{5040d5a60248401ca34a5741a0082d6a,
title = "Does mother know best? Treatment adherence as a function of anticipated treatment benefit",
abstract = "Background: We describe bias resulting from individualized treatment selection, which occurs when treatment has heterogeneous effects and individuals selectively choose treatments of greatest benefit to themselves. This pernicious bias may confound estimates from observational studies and lead to important misinterpretation of intent-to-treat analyses of randomized trials. Despite the potentially serious threat to inferences, individualized treatment selection has rarely been formally described or assessed. Methods: The Moving To Opportunity trial randomly assigned subsidized rental vouchers to low-income families in high-poverty public housing. We assessed the Kessler-6 psychological distress and Behavior Problems Index outcomes for 2,829 adolescents 4-7 years after randomization. Among families randomly assigned to receive vouchers, we estimated probability of moving (treatment), predicted by prerandomization characteristics (c statistic = 0.63). We categorized families into tertiles of this estimated probability of moving, and compared instrumental variable effect estimates for moving on behavior problems index and Kessler-6 across tertiles. Results: Instrumental variable estimated effects of moving on behavioral problems index were most adverse for boys least likely to move (b = 0.93; 95{\%} confidence interval: 0.33, 1.53) compared with boys most likely to move (b = 0.14; 95{\%} confidence interval: -0.15, 0.44; P = 0.02 for treatment × tertile interaction). Effects on Kessler-6 were more beneficial for girls least likely to move compared with girls most likely to move (-0.62 vs. 0.02; interaction; P = 0.03). Conclusions: Evidence of individualized treatment selection differed by child gender and outcome and should be evaluated in randomized trial reports, especially when heterogeneous treatment effects are likely and nonadherence is common.",
author = "Glymour, {M. Maria} and Nguyen, {Quynh C.} and Roland Matsouaka and Tchetgen, {Eric J Tchetgen} and Schmidt, {Nicole M.} and Osypuk, {Theresa L.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1097/EDE.0000000000000431",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "265--275",
journal = "Epidemiology",
issn = "1044-3983",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does mother know best? Treatment adherence as a function of anticipated treatment benefit

AU - Glymour, M. Maria

AU - Nguyen, Quynh C.

AU - Matsouaka, Roland

AU - Tchetgen, Eric J Tchetgen

AU - Schmidt, Nicole M.

AU - Osypuk, Theresa L.

PY - 2016/1/28

Y1 - 2016/1/28

N2 - Background: We describe bias resulting from individualized treatment selection, which occurs when treatment has heterogeneous effects and individuals selectively choose treatments of greatest benefit to themselves. This pernicious bias may confound estimates from observational studies and lead to important misinterpretation of intent-to-treat analyses of randomized trials. Despite the potentially serious threat to inferences, individualized treatment selection has rarely been formally described or assessed. Methods: The Moving To Opportunity trial randomly assigned subsidized rental vouchers to low-income families in high-poverty public housing. We assessed the Kessler-6 psychological distress and Behavior Problems Index outcomes for 2,829 adolescents 4-7 years after randomization. Among families randomly assigned to receive vouchers, we estimated probability of moving (treatment), predicted by prerandomization characteristics (c statistic = 0.63). We categorized families into tertiles of this estimated probability of moving, and compared instrumental variable effect estimates for moving on behavior problems index and Kessler-6 across tertiles. Results: Instrumental variable estimated effects of moving on behavioral problems index were most adverse for boys least likely to move (b = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 1.53) compared with boys most likely to move (b = 0.14; 95% confidence interval: -0.15, 0.44; P = 0.02 for treatment × tertile interaction). Effects on Kessler-6 were more beneficial for girls least likely to move compared with girls most likely to move (-0.62 vs. 0.02; interaction; P = 0.03). Conclusions: Evidence of individualized treatment selection differed by child gender and outcome and should be evaluated in randomized trial reports, especially when heterogeneous treatment effects are likely and nonadherence is common.

AB - Background: We describe bias resulting from individualized treatment selection, which occurs when treatment has heterogeneous effects and individuals selectively choose treatments of greatest benefit to themselves. This pernicious bias may confound estimates from observational studies and lead to important misinterpretation of intent-to-treat analyses of randomized trials. Despite the potentially serious threat to inferences, individualized treatment selection has rarely been formally described or assessed. Methods: The Moving To Opportunity trial randomly assigned subsidized rental vouchers to low-income families in high-poverty public housing. We assessed the Kessler-6 psychological distress and Behavior Problems Index outcomes for 2,829 adolescents 4-7 years after randomization. Among families randomly assigned to receive vouchers, we estimated probability of moving (treatment), predicted by prerandomization characteristics (c statistic = 0.63). We categorized families into tertiles of this estimated probability of moving, and compared instrumental variable effect estimates for moving on behavior problems index and Kessler-6 across tertiles. Results: Instrumental variable estimated effects of moving on behavioral problems index were most adverse for boys least likely to move (b = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 1.53) compared with boys most likely to move (b = 0.14; 95% confidence interval: -0.15, 0.44; P = 0.02 for treatment × tertile interaction). Effects on Kessler-6 were more beneficial for girls least likely to move compared with girls most likely to move (-0.62 vs. 0.02; interaction; P = 0.03). Conclusions: Evidence of individualized treatment selection differed by child gender and outcome and should be evaluated in randomized trial reports, especially when heterogeneous treatment effects are likely and nonadherence is common.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957434137&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84957434137&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000431

DO - 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000431

M3 - Article

C2 - 26628424

AN - SCOPUS:84957434137

VL - 27

SP - 265

EP - 275

JO - Epidemiology

JF - Epidemiology

SN - 1044-3983

IS - 2

ER -