Statistical methods to adjust for the effects on intervention compliance in randomized clinical trials where precision treatment rules are being developed.
Saved in:
| Title: | Statistical methods to adjust for the effects on intervention compliance in randomized clinical trials where precision treatment rules are being developed. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Zainal, Nur Hani (AUTHOR), Benjet, Corina (AUTHOR), Albor, Yesica (AUTHOR), Nuñez‐Delgado, Mauricio (AUTHOR), Zambrano‐Cruz, Renato (AUTHOR), Contreras‐Ibáñez, Carlos C. (AUTHOR), Cudris‐Torres, Lorena (AUTHOR), de la Peña, Francisco R. (AUTHOR), González, Noé (AUTHOR), Guerrero‐López, José Benjamín (AUTHOR), Gutierrez‐Garcia, Raúl A. (AUTHOR), Jiménez‐Peréz, Ana Lucía (AUTHOR), Medina‐Mora, Maria Elena (AUTHOR), Patiño, Pamela (AUTHOR), Cuijpers, Pim (AUTHOR), Gildea, Sarah M. (AUTHOR), Kazdin, Alan E. (AUTHOR), Kennedy, Chris J. (AUTHOR), Luedtke, Alex (AUTHOR), Sampson, Nancy A. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. Mar2025, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p1-18. 18p. |
| Subjects: | Treatment effect heterogeneity, Patient compliance, Mathematical statistics, Psychotherapy, Clinical trials, Treatment effectiveness |
| Abstract: | Background: Heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTEs) can occur because of either differential treatment compliance or differential treatment effectiveness. This distinction is important, as it has action implications, but it is unclear how to distinguish these two possibilities statistically in precision treatment analysis given that compliance is not observed until after randomization. We review available statistical methods and illustrate a recommended method in secondary analysis in a trial focused on HTE. Methods: The trial randomized n = 880 anxious and/or depressed university students to guided internet‐delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (i‐CBT) or treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) and evaluated joint remission. Previously reported analyses documented superiority of i‐CBT but significant HTE. In the reanalysis reported here, we used baseline (i.e., pre‐randomization) covariates to predict compliance among participants randomized to guided i‐CBT, generated a cross‐validated within‐person expected compliance score based on this model in both intervention groups, and then used this expected composite score as a predictor in an expanded HTE analysis. Results: The significant intervention effect was limited to participants with high expected compliance. Residual HTE was nonsignificant. Conclusions: Future psychotherapy HTE trials should routinely develop and include expected compliance composite scores to distinguish the effects of differential treatment compliance from the effects of differential treatment effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTEs) can occur because of either differential treatment compliance or differential treatment effectiveness. This distinction is important, as it has action implications, but it is unclear how to distinguish these two possibilities statistically in precision treatment analysis given that compliance is not observed until after randomization. We review available statistical methods and illustrate a recommended method in secondary analysis in a trial focused on HTE. Methods: The trial randomized n = 880 anxious and/or depressed university students to guided internet‐delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (i‐CBT) or treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) and evaluated joint remission. Previously reported analyses documented superiority of i‐CBT but significant HTE. In the reanalysis reported here, we used baseline (i.e., pre‐randomization) covariates to predict compliance among participants randomized to guided i‐CBT, generated a cross‐validated within‐person expected compliance score based on this model in both intervention groups, and then used this expected composite score as a predictor in an expanded HTE analysis. Results: The significant intervention effect was limited to participants with high expected compliance. Residual HTE was nonsignificant. Conclusions: Future psychotherapy HTE trials should routinely develop and include expected compliance composite scores to distinguish the effects of differential treatment compliance from the effects of differential treatment effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10498931 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mpr.70005 |
