DOCSLIB.ORG

Properties of Simple Randomization in Clinical Trials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Properties of Simple Randomization in Clinical Trials Properties of Simple Randomization in Clinical Trials John M. Lachin, ScD The George Washington University, Department of Statistics~Computer and Information Systems, The Biostatistics Center, Rockville, Maryland ABSTRACT: This article presents the properties of complete randomization (e.g., coin toss) and of the random allocation rule (random permutation of n/2 of n elements). The latter is principally used in cases where the total sample size n is known exactly a priori. The likelihood of treatment imbalances is readily computed and is shown to be negligible for large trials (n > 200), regardless of whether a stratified randomization is used. It is shown that substantial treatment imbalances are extremely unlikely in large trials, and therefore there is likely to be no substantial effect on power. The large-sample permutational distribution of the family of linear rank tests is presented for complete randomization unconditionally and conditionally, and for the random allocation rule. Asymptotically the three are equivalent to the distribution of these tests under a sampling-based population model. Permutation tests are also presented for a stratified analysis within one or more subgroups of patients defined post hoc on the basis of a covariate. This provides a basis for analysis when some patients' responses are assumed to be missing-at-random. Using the Blackwell-Hodges model, it is shown that complete randomization elim- inates the potential for selection bias, but that the random allocation rule yields a substantial potential for selection bias in an unmasked trial. Finally, the Efron model for accidentalbias is used to assess the potential for bias in the estimate of treatment effect due to covariate imbalance. Asymptotically, this probability approaches zero for complete randomization and for the random allocation rule. However, for finite n, complete randomization minimizes the probability of accidental bias, whereas this probability is slightly higher with a random allocation rule. It is concluded that complete randomization has merit in large clinical trials. KEY WORDS: Randomization, complete binomial, random allocation rule, permutation tests, stratified analysis, missing data, selection bias, accidental bias INTRODUCTION Many procedures have been proposed for the random assignment of treat- ments to patients in clinical trials [1-4]. In the simplest cases, no restrictions are placed on the nature of the randomization sequence, apart perhaps from prespecification of the total sample size and the sample size in each group, Address reprint requests to: John M. Lachin, ScD, The George Washington University, Department of Statistics~Computer and Information Systems, The Biostatistics Center, 6110 Executive Boulevard, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852. Received April 29, 1987; revised June 13, 1988. 312 Controlled Clinical Trials 9:312-326 (1988) 0197-2456/1988/$3.50 © Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1988 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10010 Simple Randomization 313 where feasible. Such procedures for unrestricted randomization are com- monly referred to as simple randomization. Lachin [1] describes some of the properties by which randomization pro- cedures have been evaluated. In this article, the properties of simple ran- domization are described as a yardstick against which the properties of re- stricted randomization procedures can be compared. Likewise, Matts and Lachin [5] describe the properties of permuted-block randomization, and Wei and Lachin [6] describe those of urn adaptive biased-coin randomization. The factors considered are the probabilities of treatment imbalances and their potential effects on power, the permutational distribution of linear rank tests, the potential for selection bias, and the potential for accidental bias. Lachin [1] describes the models by which these properties are assessed. Only the case of two treatment groups (a and b) is considered, where approximately equal sample sizes are desired. SIMPLE RANDOMIZATION In order to describe "simple" randomization, two different cases must be distinguished. In the first case, the total sample size n and the sample sizes in each group are prespecified exactly and are under the direct control of the investigator. In this case the usual simple randomization procedure is the random allocation rule [7, 8], whereby a randomly choosen subset of n/2 out of n is assigned to group a, the remainder to group b. Thus, the sample sizes in each group, say na and r/b, each equal to 1/2. In the second case, which is most common in large clinical trials, a target sample size is established but the final sample size is not known with certainty. In this case, the usual simple randomization procedure is complete randomi- zation [7], analogous to tossing a fair coin. Here the sample sizes in each group are binomially distributed random variables. For complete randomization, the marginal and conditional probability of assignment is a constant 1/2 for all assignments. That is, pj = Pr(a) = 1/2 marginally for the jth assignment, and the conditional probabilities are such that pj~, = 1/2 for all j' < j, even if all prior assignments were to one of the two groups. For the random allocation rule, the marginal probability of assignment is also 1/2 for all assignments. However, the conditional probability of assign- ment at the jth step given prior assignments is not always 1/2. Specifically, let na = nb = m = n/2 and let n~j and nbj denote the numbers assigned to a and b after j assignments. For the random allocation rule, pjv, = (m - 1)/(n - 1) if j and j' have the same assignment, pj~, = m/(n- 1) otherwise. Also, PJ~'<i = (m - n~d_l)/(n - j + 1). Clearly pj~,<j = 1/2 only if the numbers of prior assignments n~,j-1 and nb,j-1 are equal. For example, suppose n = 10 (n~ = nb= m = 5) and the first two assignments are a and a. Then, the unconditional (marginal) probability of an a on the third assignment is I/2 over the set of all possible permutations, but within the particular permutation chosen, the conditional probability of an a on the third assignment given the past assignments is p3~'<3 = 3/8. 314 j.M. Lachin TREATMENT IMBALANCES With a random allocation rule na = m provided that n patients are ran- domized. Ifj < n patients are randomized, then the probability of an imbalance of na/to nb/, or worse, can be obtained from Fisher's exact test for the resulting 2 x 2 table with cells naj, rlbj, m -- na/, and m - nbj. Asymptotically, this probability can be assessed by the ordinary chi-square test for the 2 x 2 table. With complete randomization, after n (or j) assignments, n~ (or n~j) follows the binomial distribution with p = 1/2 and sample size n (or j). The specific probability of a treatment imbalance of na to nb can readily be calculated using the large sample approximation to the binomial, where na is approximately normally distributed with mean (0.5)n = m and variance (0.5)2n -- n/4. If we denote the larger of the two sample fractions as qu = max(n~, nb)/n, then Pr[qu > r] ~ 2~(- ZF), where ~(.) is the standard normal cumulative distribution [e.g., ci)(1.645) = 0.95] and Zr = 2(r - 0.5)V~n. Therefore, the probability of a stated treatment imbalance r decreases as the sample size increases. This property is displayed in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 presents the prob- ability of obtaining a treatment imbalance (larger sample fraction) of q~ --- r for r = 0.55, 0.60, and 0.70. Figure 1 shows that there is a probability of less than 0.05 of an imbalance of 0.70 or more for a sample size of 30 or more; of an imbalance of 0.60 or more for a sample size of 100 or more; and of an imbalance of 0.55 or more for a sample size of 400 or more. Figure 2 shows those degrees of imbalance q~ --- r that would occur with probabilities 0.01, 0.05, or 0.10 as sample size increases. This shows that severe imbalances become extremely unlikely with increasing sample sizes. Now consider the case of a stratified randomization with K strata, each of size nk (1 -----k --< K). By the normal approximation to the binomial, the number assigned to treatment a in the kth strata, nak, is asympotically normally dis- tributed with mean P-k = nd2 and variance o~k = nd4. Therefore, in aggregate overall K strata, n~ = Y.n~k is also asympotically normally distributed with mean p, = Xp,k = n/2 and variance oa = Y.(r2 = n/4. Therefore the probability of an aggregate treatment imbalance in a stratified trial is the same as that in an unstratified trial of the same total sample size. The principal concern is that a treatment imbalance may affect the power of a statistical test. It has been shown that power is nontrivially reduced only if the treatment imbalance is on the order of qu = 0.70 or greater [1]. However, from Figures I and 2 it is clear that even for a small-sized study, the probability of an imbalance this great is extremely remote. Thus, there is little support for the widespread concern that complete randomization is likely to result in treatment imbalances that could have a substantial effect on statistical power. PERMUTATION TESTS As described in ref. 1, there is a fundamental difference between the use of a population model and a randomization model as a basis for statistical tests. Permutation tests make no assumptions regarding the origin of the patient samples or the distribution of the measurements. However, the vari- ance of permutation tests depends on the precise nature of the randomization Probability of Imbalance b0 b0 .o o ~0 0 0 ~ 0 0"1 0 O~ 0 -[~ I I I I I /f f 0 f IV ~ 0 0 b~ 0 0 9P~ 7 // /// j::LO // O / / 3 / p~ / mg / O / / I O I O / O / / I ?, ?, o p o O O 0 0 ¢.~ ex ¢D0 N O" ¢3 O ~[~ uo.q~z!tuopu~I oldtu!S 0.75-T O~ I I J 0,70 - Probability = 0.01 0.05 i a) 0 t- 0.10 O "~ 0.65- E C 0 o b-E i ~- o.go- E 0.55 - 0.50 Jl-- -- I ......
Load more
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

10 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • How Many Stratification Factors Is Too Many" to Use in a Randomization
    How many Strati cation Factors is \Too Many" to Use in a Randomization Plan? Terry M. Therneau, PhD Abstract The issue of strati cation and its role in patient assignment has gen- erated much discussion, mostly fo cused on its imp ortance to a study [1,2] or lack thereof [3,4]. This rep ort fo cuses on a much narrower prob- lem: assuming that strati ed assignment is desired, how many factors can b e accomo dated? This is investigated for two metho ds of balanced patient assignment, the rst is based on the minimization metho d of Taves [5] and the second on the commonly used metho d of strati ed assignment [6,7]. Simulation results show that the former metho d can accomo date a large number of factors 10-20 without diculty, but that the latter b egins to fail if the total numb er of distinct combinations of factor levels is greater than approximately n=2. The two metho ds are related to a linear discriminant mo del, which helps to explain the results. 1 1 Intro duction This work arose out of my involvement with lung cancer studies within the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. These studies are small, typically 100 to 200 patients, and there are several imp ortant prognostic factors on whichwe wish to balance. Some of the factors, such as p erformance or Karnofsky score, are likely to contribute a larger survival impact than the treatment under study; hazards ratios of 3{4 are not uncommon. In this setting it b ecomes very dicult to interpret study results if any of the factors are signi cantly out of balance.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmonizing Fully Optimal Designs with Classic Randomization in Fixed Trial Experiments Arxiv:1810.08389V1 [Stat.ME] 19 Oct 20
    Harmonizing Fully Optimal Designs with Classic Randomization in Fixed Trial Experiments Adam Kapelner, Department of Mathematics, Queens College, CUNY, Abba M. Krieger, Department of Statistics, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Uri Shalit and David Azriel Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, The Technion October 22, 2018 Abstract There is a movement in design of experiments away from the classic randomization put forward by Fisher, Cochran and others to one based on optimization. In fixed-sample trials comparing two groups, measurements of subjects are known in advance and subjects can be divided optimally into two groups based on a criterion of homogeneity or \imbalance" between the two groups. These designs are far from random. This paper seeks to understand the benefits and the costs over classic randomization in the context of different performance criterions such as Efron's worst-case analysis. In the criterion that we motivate, randomization beats optimization. However, the optimal arXiv:1810.08389v1 [stat.ME] 19 Oct 2018 design is shown to lie between these two extremes. Much-needed further work will provide a procedure to find this optimal designs in different scenarios in practice. Until then, it is best to randomize. Keywords: randomization, experimental design, optimization, restricted randomization 1 1 Introduction In this short survey, we wish to investigate performance differences between completely random experimental designs and non-random designs that optimize for observed covariate imbalance. We demonstrate that depending on how we wish to evaluate our estimator, the optimal strategy will change. We motivate a performance criterion that when applied, does not crown either as the better choice, but a design that is a harmony between the two of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Restricted Randomization Rules in Sequential Designs Jose F
    This article was downloaded by: [Georgia Tech Library] On: 10 April 2013, At: 12:48 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lsta20 Some Restricted randomization rules in sequential designs Jose F. Soares a & C.F. Jeff Wu b a Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil b University of Wisconsin Madison and Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Berkeley Version of record first published: 27 Jun 2007. To cite this article: Jose F. Soares & C.F. Jeff Wu (1983): Some Restricted randomization rules in sequential designs, Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 12:17, 2017-2034 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03610928308828586 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Experiments
    IU Workshop in Methods – 2019 Survey Experiments Testing Causality in Diverse Samples Trenton D. Mize Department of Sociology & Advanced Methodologies (AMAP) Purdue University Survey Experiments Page 1 Survey Experiments Page 2 Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 What is a survey experiment? .................................................................................................................................... 9 What is an experiment?.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Independent and dependent variables ................................................................................................................. 11 Experimental Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 12 WHY CONDUCT A SURVEY EXPERIMENT? ........................................................................................................................... 13 Internal, external, and construct validity ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stratification Trees for Adaptive Randomization in Randomized
    Stratification Trees for Adaptive Randomization in Randomized Controlled Trials Max Tabord-Meehan Department of Economics Northwestern University mtabordmeehan@u.northwestern.edu ⇤ (Click here for most recent version) 26th October 2018 Abstract This paper proposes an adaptive randomization procedure for two-stage randomized con- trolled trials. The method uses data from a first-wave experiment in order to determine how to stratify in a second wave of the experiment, where the objective is to minimize the variance of an estimator for the average treatment e↵ect (ATE). We consider selection from a class of stratified randomization procedures which we call stratification trees: these are procedures whose strata can be represented as decision trees, with di↵ering treatment assignment probabilities across strata. By using the first wave to estimate a stratification tree, we simultaneously select which covariates to use for stratification, how to stratify over these covariates, as well as the assign- ment probabilities within these strata. Our main result shows that using this randomization procedure with an appropriate estimator results in an asymptotic variance which minimizes the variance bound for estimating the ATE, over an optimal stratification of the covariate space. Moreover, by extending techniques developed in Bugni et al. (2018), the results we present are able to accommodate a large class of assignment mechanisms within strata, including stratified block randomization. We also present extensions of the procedure to the setting of multiple treatments, and to the targeting of subgroup-specific e↵ects. In a simulation study, we find that our method is most e↵ective when the response model exhibits some amount of “sparsity” with respect to the covariates, but can be e↵ective in other contexts as well, as long as the first-wave sample size used to estimate the stratification tree is not prohibitively small.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials Using Covariate Constrained Randomization: a Method for Practice-Based Research Networks (Pbrns)
    SPECIAL COMMUNICATION Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials Using Covariate Constrained Randomization: A Method for Practice-based Research Networks (PBRNs) L. Miriam Dickinson, PhD, Brenda Beaty, MSPH, Chet Fox, MD, Wilson Pace, MD, W. Perry Dickinson, MD, Caroline Emsermann, MS, and Allison Kempe, MD, MPH Background: Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are useful in practice-based research network transla- tional research. However, simple or stratified randomization often yields study groups that differ on key baseline variables when the number of clusters is small. Unbalanced study arms constitute a potentially serious methodological problem for CRTs. Methods: Covariate constrained randomization with data on relevant variables before randomization was used to achieve balanced study arms in 2 pragmatic CRTs. In study 1, 16 counties in Colorado were randomized to practice-based or population-based reminder recall for vaccinating children ages 19 to 35 months. In study 2, 18 primary care practices were randomized to computer decision support plus practice facilitation versus computer decision support alone to improve care for patients with stage 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease. For each study, a set of optimal randomizations, which minimized differ- ences of key variables between study arms, was identified from the set of all possible randomizations. Results: Differences between study arms were smaller in the optimal versus remaining randomiza- tions. Even for the randomization in the optimal set with the largest difference between groups, study arms did not differ significantly on any variable for either study (P > .05). Conclusions: Covariate constrained randomization, which restricts the full randomization set to a subset in which differences between study arms are minimized, is a useful tool for achieving balanced study arms in CRTs.
    [Show full text]
  • Random Allocation in Controlled Clinical Trials: a Review
    J Pharm Pharm Sci (www.cspsCanada.org) 17(2) 248 - 253, 2014 Random Allocation in Controlled Clinical Trials: A Review Bolaji Emmanuel Egbewale Department of Community Medicine, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria Received, February 16, 2014; Revised, May 23, 2014; Accepted, May 30, 2014; Published, June 2, 2014. ABSTRACT- PURPOSE: An allocation strategy that allows for chance placement of participants to study groups is crucial to the experimental nature of randomised controlled trials. Following decades of the discovery of randomisation considerable erroneous opinion and misrepresentations of its concept both in principle and practice still exists. In some circles, opinions are also divided on the strength and weaknesses of each of the random allocation strategies. This review provides an update on various random allocation techniques so as to correct existing misconceptions on this all important procedure. METHODS: This is a review of literatures published in the Pubmed database on concepts of common allocation techniques used in controlled clinical trials. RESULTS: Allocation methods that use; case record number, date of birth, date of presentation, haphazard or alternating assignment are non-random allocation techniques and should not be confused as random methods. Four main random allocation techniques were identified. Minimisation procedure though not fully a random technique, however, proffers solution to the limitations of stratification at balancing for multiple prognostic factors, as the procedure makes treatment groups similar in several important features even in small sample trials. CONCLUSIONS: Even though generation of allocation sequence by simple randomisation procedure is easily facilitated, a major drawback of the technique is that treatment groups can by chance end up being dissimilar both in size and composition of prognostic factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Variance and Analysis of Variance and Design of Experiments of Experiments-I
    Analysis of Variance and Design of Experimentseriments--II MODULE ––IVIV LECTURE - 19 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS AND THEIR ANALYSIS Dr. Shalabh Department of Mathematics and Statistics Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur 2 Design of experiment means how to design an experiment in the sense that how the observations or measurements should be obtained to answer a qqyuery inavalid, efficient and economical way. The desigggning of experiment and the analysis of obtained data are inseparable. If the experiment is designed properly keeping in mind the question, then the data generated is valid and proper analysis of data provides the valid statistical inferences. If the experiment is not well designed, the validity of the statistical inferences is questionable and may be invalid. It is important to understand first the basic terminologies used in the experimental design. Experimental unit For conducting an experiment, the experimental material is divided into smaller parts and each part is referred to as experimental unit. The experimental unit is randomly assigned to a treatment. The phrase “randomly assigned” is very important in this definition. Experiment A way of getting an answer to a question which the experimenter wants to know. Treatment Different objects or procedures which are to be compared in an experiment are called treatments. Sampling unit The object that is measured in an experiment is called the sampling unit. This may be different from the experimental unit. 3 Factor A factor is a variable defining a categorization. A factor can be fixed or random in nature. • A factor is termed as fixed factor if all the levels of interest are included in the experiment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Random Assignment: Implementing Studies and Impacting Policy
    The Politics of Random Assignment: Implementing Studies and Impacting Policy Judith M. Gueron Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) As the only nonacademic presenting a paper at this conference, I see it as my charge to focus on the challenge of implementing random assignment in the field. I will not spend time arguing for the methodological strengths of social experiments or advocating for more such field trials. Others have done so eloquently.1 But I will make my biases clear. For 25 years, I and many of my MDRC colleagues have fought to implement random assignment in diverse arenas and to show that this approach is feasible, ethical, uniquely convincing, and superior for answering certain questions. Our organization is widely credited with being one of the pioneers of this approach, and through its use producing results that are trusted across the political spectrum and that have made a powerful difference in social policy and research practice. So, I am a believer, but not, I hope, a blind one. I do not think that random assignment is a panacea or that it can address all the critical policy questions, or substitute for other types of analysis, or is always appropriate. But I do believe that it offers unique power in answering the “Does it make a difference?” question. With random assignment, you can know something with much greater certainty and, as a result, can more confidently separate fact from advocacy. This paper focuses on implementing experiments. In laying out the ingredients of success, I argue that creative and flexible research design skills are essential, but that just as important are operational and political skills, applied both to marketing the experiment in the first place and to helping interpret and promote its findings down the line.
    [Show full text]
  • In Pursuit of Balance
    WPS4752 POLICY RESEA R CH WO R KING PA P E R 4752 Public Disclosure Authorized In Pursuit of Balance Randomization in Practice Public Disclosure Authorized in Development Field Experiments Miriam Bruhn David McKenzie Public Disclosure Authorized The World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized Development Research Group Finance and Private Sector Team October 2008 POLICY RESEA R CH WO R KING PA P E R 4752 Abstract Randomized experiments are increasingly used in emerge. First, many researchers are not controlling for the development economics, with researchers now facing method of randomization in their analysis. The authors the question of not just whether to randomize, but show this leads to tests with incorrect size, and can result how to do so. Pure random assignment guarantees that in lower power than if a pure random draw was used. the treatment and control groups will have identical Second, they find that in samples of 300 or more, the characteristics on average, but in any particular random different randomization methods perform similarly in allocation, the two groups will differ along some terms of achieving balance on many future outcomes of dimensions. Methods used to pursue greater balance interest. However, for very persistent outcome variables include stratification, pair-wise matching, and re- and in smaller sample sizes, pair-wise matching and randomization. This paper presents new evidence on stratification perform best. Third, the analysis suggests the randomization methods used in existing randomized that on balance the re-randomization methods common experiments, and carries out simulations in order to in practice are less desirable than other methods, such as provide guidance for researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Items to Get Right When Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials of Social Programs
    Key Items to Get Right When Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials of Social Programs February 2016 This publication was produced by the Evidence-Based Policy team of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (now Arnold Ventures). This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part for educational purposes is granted. We welcome comments and suggestions on this document (jbaron@arnoldventures.org). 1 Purpose This is a checklist of key items to get right when conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a social program or practice. The checklist is designed to be a practical resource for researchers and sponsors of research. It describes items that are critical to the success of an RCT in producing valid findings about a social program’s effectiveness. This document is limited to key items, and does not address all contingencies that may affect a study’s success.1 Items in this checklist are categorized according to the following phases of an RCT: 1. Planning the study; 2. Carrying out random assignment; 3. Measuring outcomes for the study sample; and 4. Analyzing the study results. 1. Key items to get right in planning the study Choose (i) the program to be evaluated, (ii) target population for the study, and (iii) key outcomes to be measured. These should include, wherever possible, ultimate outcomes of policy importance. As illustrative examples: . An RCT of a pregnancy prevention program preferably should measure outcomes such as pregnancies or births, and not just intermediate outcomes such as condom use. An RCT of a remedial reading program preferably should measure outcomes such as reading comprehension, and not just participants’ ability to sound out words.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Randomize?
    TRANSLATING RESEARCH INTO ACTION How to Randomize? Roland Rathelot J-PAL Course Overview 1. What is Evaluation? 2. Outcomes, Impact, and Indicators 3. Why Randomize and Common Critiques 4. How to Randomize 5. Sampling and Sample Size 6. Threats and Analysis 7. Project from Start to Finish 8. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Scaling Up Lecture Overview • Unit and method of randomization • Real-world constraints • Revisiting unit and method • Variations on simple treatment-control Lecture Overview • Unit and method of randomization • Real-world constraints • Revisiting unit and method • Variations on simple treatment-control Unit of Randomization: Options 1. Randomizing at the individual level 2. Randomizing at the group level “Cluster Randomized Trial” • Which level to randomize? Unit of Randomization: Considerations • What unit does the program target for treatment? • What is the unit of analysis? Unit of Randomization: Individual? Unit of Randomization: Individual? Unit of Randomization: Clusters? Unit of Randomization: Class? Unit of Randomization: Class? Unit of Randomization: School? Unit of Randomization: School? How to Choose the Level • Nature of the Treatment – How is the intervention administered? – What is the catchment area of each “unit of intervention” – How wide is the potential impact? • Aggregation level of available data • Power requirements • Generally, best to randomize at the level at which the treatment is administered. Suppose an intervention targets health outcomes of children through info on hand-washing. What is the appropriate level of randomization? A. Child level 30% B. Household level 23% C. Classroom level D. School level 17% E. Village level 13% 10% F. Don’t know 7% A. B. C. D.
    [Show full text]