skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Representation and Extrapolation: Evidence from Clinical Trials
Abstract

This article examines the consequences and causes of low enrollment of Black patients in clinical trials. We develop a simple model of similarity-based extrapolation that predicts that evidence is more relevant for decision-making by physicians and patients when it is more representative of the group being treated. This generates the key result that the perceived benefit of a medicine for a group depends not only on the average benefit from a trial but also on the share of patients from that group who were enrolled in the trial. In survey experiments, we find that physicians who care for Black patients are more willing to prescribe drugs tested in representative samples, an effect substantial enough to close observed gaps in the prescribing rates of new medicines. Black patients update more on drug efficacy when the sample that the drug is tested on is more representative, reducing Black-white patient gaps in beliefs about whether the drug will work as described. Despite these benefits of representative data, our framework and evidence suggest that those who have benefited more from past medical breakthroughs are less costly to enroll in the present, leading to persistence in who is represented in the evidence base.

  more » « less
PAR ID:
10484835
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Oxford University Press
Date Published:
Journal Name:
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Volume:
139
Issue:
1
ISSN:
0033-5533
Format(s):
Medium: X Size: p. 575-635
Size(s):
p. 575-635
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ( , Medical Decision Making)
    Background

    Physicians who communicate their prognostic beliefs to patients must balance candor against other competing goals, such as preserving hope, acknowledging the uncertainty of medicine, or motivating patients to follow their treatment regimes.

     Objective

    To explore possible differences between the beliefs physicians report as their own and those they express to patients and colleagues.

     Design

    An online panel of 398 specialists in internal medicine who completed their medical degrees and practiced in the United States provided their estimated diagnostic accuracy and prognostic assessments for a randomly assigned case. In addition, they reported the diagnostic and prognostic assessments they would report to patients and colleagues more generally. Physicians answered questions about how and why their own beliefs differed from their expressed beliefs to patients and colleagues in the specific case and more generally in their practice.

     Results

    When discussing beliefs about prognoses to patients and colleagues, most physicians expressed beliefs that differed from their own beliefs. Physicians were more likely to express greater optimism when talking to patients about poor prognoses than good prognoses. Physicians were also more likely to express greater uncertainty to patients when prognoses were poor than when they were good. The most common reasons for the differences between physicians’ own beliefs and their expressed beliefs were preserving hope and acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of medicine.

     Conclusion

    To balance candor against other communicative goals, physicians tended to express beliefs that were more optimistic and contained greater uncertainty than the beliefs they said were their own, especially in discussions with patients whose prognoses were poor.

     
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ( , Medical Decision Making)
    Background

    Health care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians’ work is educating their patients, people’s concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people’s perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient’s disease.

     Design

    We recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient’s ability to manage their disease, and the patient’s trust in doctors.

     Results

    Participants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient’s diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3).

     Conclusions

    Participants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients’ concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education.

     Highlights

    Understanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians. People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively. Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care.

     
    more » « less
  3. ( , Annual Health Law Symposium, Saint Louis University School of Law)
    Medical boards are responsible for disciplining physicians who inflict egregious harm on their patients, yet they often fail to do so. This Article develops a cultural and organizational framework for explaining why boards so often fail to discipline physicians. The framework highlights three types of barriers that impede board action: 1) input barriers that prevent hospitals and clinics from reporting harm to boards; 2) processing barriers that prevent boards from taking sufficient action against physicians who do harm; and 3) output barriers that prevent boards from sharing information about physicians who do harm with other disciplinary agencies like other medical boards and law enforcement. The Article demonstrates how the interplay between these barriers reduces the likelihood that boards will discipline physicians who harm patients and also shows how boards behave like other kinds of organizations in similar situations. The Article concludes with a set of solutions to overcoming each type of barrier and explains why an organizational and cultural perspective is essential for identifying gaps between boards’ stated goals and their actions as well as for developing effective solutions. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , eLife)
    null (Ed.)
    The new coronavirus (now named SARS-CoV-2) causing the disease pandemic in 2019 (COVID-19), has so far infected over 35 million people worldwide and killed more than 1 million. Most people with COVID-19 have no symptoms or only mild symptoms. But some become seriously ill and need hospitalization. The sickest are admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and may need mechanical ventilation to help them breath. Being able to predict which patients with COVID-19 will become severely ill could help hospitals around the world manage the huge influx of patients caused by the pandemic and save lives. Now, Hao, Sotudian, Wang, Xu et al. show that computer models using artificial intelligence technology can help predict which COVID-19 patients will be hospitalized, admitted to the ICU, or need mechanical ventilation. Using data of 2,566 COVID-19 patients from five Massachusetts hospitals, Hao et al. created three separate models that can predict hospitalization, ICU admission, and the need for mechanical ventilation with more than 86% accuracy, based on patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, laboratory results and chest x-rays. Hao et al. found that the patients’ vital signs, age, obesity, difficulty breathing, and underlying diseases like diabetes, were the strongest predictors of the need for hospitalization. Being male, having diabetes, cloudy chest x-rays, and certain laboratory results were the most important risk factors for intensive care treatment and mechanical ventilation. Laboratory results suggesting tissue damage, severe inflammation or oxygen deprivation in the body's tissues were important warning signs of severe disease. The results provide a more detailed picture of the patients who are likely to suffer from severe forms of COVID-19. Using the predictive models may help physicians identify patients who appear okay but need closer monitoring and more aggressive treatment. The models may also help policy makers decide who needs workplace accommodations such as being allowed to work from home, which individuals may benefit from more frequent testing, and who should be prioritized for vaccination when a vaccine becomes available. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ( , Biometrics)
    Abstract

    One central task in precision medicine is to establish individualized treatment rules (ITRs) for patients with heterogeneous responses to different therapies. Motivated from a randomized clinical trial for Type 2 diabetic patients on a comparison of two drugs, that is, pioglitazone and gliclazide, we consider a problem: utilizing promising candidate biomarkers to improve an existing ITR. This calls for a biomarker evaluation procedure that enables to gauge added values of individual biomarkers. We propose an assessment analytic, termed asnet benefit index (NBI), that quantifies a contrast between the resulting gain and loss of treatment benefits when a biomarker enters ITR to reallocate patients in treatments. We optimize reallocation schemes via outcome weighted learning (OWL), from which the optimal treatment group labels are generated by weighted support vector machine (SVM). To account for sampling uncertainty in assessing a biomarker, we propose an NBI‐based test for a significant improvement over the existing ITR, where the empirical null distribution is constructed via the method of stratified permutation by treatment arms. Applying NBI to the motivating diabetes trial, we found that baseline fasting insulin is an important biomarker that leads to an improvement over an existing ITR based only on patient's baseline fasting plasma glucose (FPG), age, and body mass index (BMI) to reduce FPG over a period of 52 weeks.

     
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email