Literature DB >> 17910109

Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients.

Anirban Basu1, James J Heckman, Salvador Navarro-Lozano, Sergio Urzua.   

Abstract

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are widely used in the health economics literature to adjust for hidden selection biases in observational studies when estimating treatment effects. Less attention has been paid in the applied literature to the proper use of IVs if treatment effects are heterogeneous across subjects and individuals select treatments based on expected idiosyncratic gains or losses from treatments. In this paper we compare conventional IV analysis with alternative approaches that use IVs to estimate treatment effects in models with response heterogeneity and self-selection. Instead of interpreting IV estimates as the effect of treatment at an unknown margin of patients, we identify the marginal patients and we apply the method of local IVs to estimate the average treatment effect and the effect on the treated on 5-year direct costs of breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy compared with mastectomy in breast cancer patients. We use a sample from the Outcomes and Preferences in Older Women, Nationwide Survey which is designed to be representative of all female Medicare beneficiaries (aged 67 or older) with newly diagnosed breast cancer between 1992 and 1994. Our results reveal some of the advantages and limitations of conventional and alternative IV methods in estimating mean treatment effect parameters. (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17910109     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1291

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  38 in total

1.  There's a reason they call them dummy variables: a note on the use of structural equation techniques in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  William H Crown
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Specification Issues in a Big Data Context: Controlling for the Endogeneity of Consumer and Provider Behaviours in Healthcare Treatment Effects Models.

Authors:  William H Crown
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Comparing cancer care, outcomes, and costs across health systems: charting the course.

Authors:  Joseph Lipscomb; K Robin Yabroff; Mark C Hornbrook; Anna Gigli; Silvia Francisci; Murray Krahn; Gemma Gatta; Annalisa Trama; Debra P Ritzwoller; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Ramzi Salloum; Neetu Chawla; Catia Angiolini; Emanuele Crocetti; Francesco Giusti; Stefano Guzzinati; Maura Mezzetti; Guido Miccinesi; Angela Mariotto
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2013

4.  Estimating Decision-Relevant Comparative Effects Using Instrumental Variables.

Authors:  Anirban Basu
Journal:  Stat Biosci       Date:  2011-09

5.  Heterogeneity in action: the role of passive personalization in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Anirban Basu; Anupam B Jena; Dana P Goldman; Tomas J Philipson; Robert Dubois
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Nonparametric Bayesian Instrumental Variable Analysis: Evaluating Heterogeneous Effects of Coronary Arterial Access Site Strategies.

Authors:  Samrachana Adhikari; Sherri Rose; Sharon-Lise Normand
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 7.  Methods in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Autism spectrum disorders: a review of measures for clinical, health services and cost-effectiveness applications.

Authors:  Nalin Payakachat; J Mick Tilford; Erica Kovacs; Karen Kuhlthau
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.217

9.  Using an instrumental variable to test for unmeasured confounding.

Authors:  Zijian Guo; Jing Cheng; Scott A Lorch; Dylan S Small
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Individual results may vary: Inequality-probability bounds for some health-outcome treatment effects.

Authors:  John Mullahy
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.