Causal Inference in Hybrid Intervention Trials Involving Treatment Choice
包含治疗选择的混合干预试验中的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接讨论随机分配与治疗偏好选择并存时的因果效应估计和试验设计。
包含治疗选择的混合干预试验中的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Randomized allocation of treatments is a cornerstone of experimental design but has drawbacks when a limited set of individuals are willing to be randomized, or the act of randomization undermines the success of the treatment. Choice-based experimental designs allow a subset of the participants to choose their treatments. We discuss here causal inferences for hybrid experimental designs in which some participants are randomly allocated to treatments and others receive their treatment preference. This work was motivated by the Women Take Pride (WTP) study, a doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT) that assessed behavioral interventions for women with heart disease. We propose a model for estimating the causal effects in the subpopulations defined by treatment preferences, and thus preference effects. We describe an EM algorithm for computing maximum likelihood estimates of the model parameters. We illustrate the method by analyzing sickness impact profile (SIP) scores and treatment adherence in the WTP data. Our results show some evidence that SIP scores were improved when women received their preferred treatment and strong preference effects on program adherence; that is, women assigned to their preferred treatment were more likely to adhere to the program. We also provide a framework for assessing the DRPT and other hybrid trial designs and discuss some alternative designs from the perspective of the strength of assumptions required to make causal inferences. Please see the supplemental material for a correction to this article.