Instrumental variable (IV) analyses are becoming common in health services research and epidemiology. IV analyses can be used both to analyze randomized trials with noncompliance and as a form of natural experiment. In these analyses, investigators often adopt a monotonicity assumption, which implies that the relevant effect only applies to a subset of the study population known as compliers. Since the estimated effect is not the average treatment effect of the study population, it is important to compare the characteristics of compliers and non-compliers. Profiling compliers and non-compliers is necessary to understand what subpopulation the researcher is making inferences about, and an important first step in evaluating the external validity (or lack thereof) of the IV estimate for compliers. Here, we discuss the assumptions necessary for profiling, which are weaker than the assumptions necessary for identifying the local average treatment effect if the instrument is randomly assigned. We then outline a simple and general method to characterize compliers and noncompliers using baseline covariates. Next, we extend current methods by deriving standard errors for these estimates. We demonstrate these methods using an IV known as tendency to operate (TTO) from health services research.
翻译:仪器变数(IV)分析在保健服务研究和流行病学中日益普遍。第四类分析既可用于分析不合规随机试验,也可用作自然实验的一种形式。在这些分析中,调查人员往往采用单一性假设,这意味着有关效果只适用于研究组群中被称为遵守者的一部分。由于估计效果不是研究组群的平均治疗效果,因此必须比较遵守者和非遵守者的特点。分析遵守者和非遵守者是必要的,以便了解研究组群对什么进行推断,是评价四类估计的外部有效性(或缺乏外部有效性)的重要第一步。我们在这里讨论剖析的必要假设,这些假设比在随机分配仪器的情况下确定当地平均治疗效果的必要假设弱。我们然后用基线变量来概述确定遵守者和非遵守者特征的简单和一般方法。我们通过为这些估计得出标准误差来扩展目前的方法。我们用一种已知的从保健服务研究中产生的趋势来证明这些方法。