Author:
Nieser Kenneth J.,Cochran Amy L.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Across studies of average treatment effects, some population subgroups consistently have lower representation than others which can lead to discrepancies in how well results generalize.
Methods
We develop a framework for quantifying inequity due to systemic disparities in sample representation and a method for mitigation during data analysis. Assuming subgroup treatment effects are exchangeable, an unbiased sample average treatment effect estimator will have lower mean-squared error, on average across studies, for subgroups with less representation when treatment effects vary. We present a method for estimating average treatment effects in representation-adjusted samples which enables subgroups to optimally leverage information from the full sample rather than only their own subgroup’s data. Two approaches for specifying representation adjustment are offered—one minimizes average mean-squared error for each subgroup separately and the other balances minimization of mean-squared error and equal representation. We conduct simulation studies to compare the performance of the proposed estimators to several subgroup-specific estimators.
Results
We find that the proposed estimators generally provide lower mean squared error, particularly for smaller subgroups, relative to the other estimators. As a case study, we apply this method to a subgroup analysis from a published study.
Conclusions
We recommend the use of the proposed estimators to mitigate the impact of disparities in representation, though structural change is ultimately needed.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference50 articles.
1. Dresser R. Wanted single, white male for medical research. Hast Cent Rep. 1992;22(1):24–9.
2. Meltzer LA, Childress JF. What Is Fair Participant Selection? In: Emanuel EJ, Grady CC, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler DD, editors. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Oxford Textbook Ser. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 377–85.
3. US Food and Drug Administration. Guideline for the study and evaluation of gender differences in the clinical evaluation of drugs; notice. Fed Regist. 1993;58(139):39406–16.
4. National Institutes of Health. NIH guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. Fed Regist. 1994;59:1408–13.
5. National Institutes of Health. NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. 2001. https://grants.nih.gov/policy/inclusion/women-and-minorities/guidelines.htm. Accessed 6 Dec 2023.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献