Quantifying and reducing inequity in average treatment effect estimation

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3