4.6 Article

Assumption-Lean Analysis of Cluster Randomized Trials in Infectious Diseases for Intent-to-Treat Effects and Network Effects

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 118, Issue 542, Pages 1195-1206

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2021.1983437

Keywords

Bounds; Causal inference; Noncompliance; Partial identification; Randomization inference

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents two assumption-lean methods for analyzing ITT effects and network effects in CRTs, and reanalyzes a study on the effect of face masks and hand sanitizers on the transmission of 2008 interpandemic influenza in Hong Kong.
Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are a popular design to study the effect of interventions in infectious disease settings. However, standard analysis of CRTs primarily relies on strong parametric methods, usually mixed-effect models to account for the clustering structure, and focuses on the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) effect to evaluate effectiveness. The article presents two assumption-lean methods to analyze two types of effects in CRTs, ITT effects and network effects among well-known compliance groups. For the ITT effects, we study the overall and the heterogeneous ITT effects among the observed covariates where we do not impose parametric models or asymptotic restrictions on cluster size. For the network effects among compliance groups, we propose a new bound-based method that uses pretreatment covariates, classification algorithms, and a linear program to obtain sharp bounds. A key feature of our method is that the bounds can become narrower as the classification algorithm improves and the method may also be useful for studies of partial identification with instrumental variables. We conclude by reanalyzing a CRT studying the effect of face masks and hand sanitizers on transmission of 2008 interpandemic influenza in Hong Kong.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available