Understanding Treatment Effect Estimates When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous for More Than One Outcome

John M. Brooks (), Cole G. Chapman () and Mary C. Schroeder ()
Additional contact information
John M. Brooks: University of South Carolina and the Center for Effectiveness Research in Orthopaedics
Cole G. Chapman: University of South Carolina and the Center for Effectiveness Research in Orthopaedics
Mary C. Schroeder: University of Iowa College of Pharmacy

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2018, vol. 16, issue 3, No 10, 393 pages

Abstract: Abstract Background Patient-centred care requires evidence of treatment effects across many outcomes. Outcomes can be beneficial (e.g. increased survival or cure rates) or detrimental (e.g. adverse events, pain associated with treatment, treatment costs, time required for treatment). Treatment effects may also be heterogeneous across outcomes and across patients. Randomized controlled trials are usually insufficient to supply evidence across outcomes. Observational data analysis is an alternative, with the caveat that the treatments observed are choices. Real-world treatment choice often involves complex assessment of expected effects across the array of outcomes. Failure to account for this complexity when interpreting treatment effect estimates could lead to clinical and policy mistakes. Objective Our objective was to assess the properties of treatment effect estimates based on choice when treatments have heterogeneous effects on both beneficial and detrimental outcomes across patients. Methods Simulation methods were used to highlight the sensitivity of treatment effect estimates to the distributions of treatment effects across patients across outcomes. Scenarios with alternative correlations between benefit and detriment treatment effects across patients were used. Regression and instrumental variable estimators were applied to the simulated data for both outcomes. Results True treatment effect parameters are sensitive to the relationships of treatment effectiveness across outcomes in each study population. In each simulation scenario, treatment effect estimate interpretations for each outcome are aligned with results shown previously in single outcome models, but these estimates vary across simulated populations with the correlations of treatment effects across patients across outcomes. Conclusions If estimator assumptions are valid, estimates across outcomes can be used to assess the optimality of treatment rates in a study population. However, because true treatment effect parameters are sensitive to correlations of treatment effects across outcomes, decision makers should be cautious about generalizing estimates to other populations.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0380-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0380-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0380-z

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().