IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v185y2022is2ps573-s589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When the ends do not justify the means: Learning who is predicted to have harmful indirect effects

Author

Listed:
  • Kara E. Rudolph
  • Iván Díaz

Abstract

There is a growing literature on finding rules by which to assign treatment based on an individual's characteristics such that a desired outcome under the intervention is maximised. A related goal entails identifying a sub‐population of individuals predicted to have a harmful indirect effect (the effect of treatment on an outcome through mediators), perhaps even in the presence of a predicted beneficial total treatment effect. In some cases, the implications of a likely harmful indirect effect may outweigh an anticipated beneficial total treatment effect, and would motivate further discussion of whether to treat identified individuals. We build on the mediation and optimal treatment rule literatures to propose a method of identifying a subgroup for which the treatment effect through the mediator is expected to be harmful. Our approach is non‐parametric, incorporates post‐treatment confounders of the mediator–outcome relationship, and does not make restrictions on the distribution of baseline covariates, mediating variables or outcomes. We apply the proposed approach to identify a subgroup of boys in the Moving To Opportunity housing voucher experiment who are predicted to have a harmful indirect effect of housing voucher receipt on subsequent psychiatric disorder incidence through aspects of their school and neighbourhood environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Kara E. Rudolph & Iván Díaz, 2022. "When the ends do not justify the means: Learning who is predicted to have harmful indirect effects," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(S2), pages 573-589, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:s2:p:s573-s589
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12951
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12951?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baqun Zhang & Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Eric B. Laber & Marie Davidian, 2012. "A Robust Method for Estimating Optimal Treatment Regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1010-1018, December.
    2. Sobel, Michael E., 2006. "What Do Randomized Studies of Housing Mobility Demonstrate?: Causal Inference in the Face of Interference," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 1398-1407, December.
    3. E. J. Tchetgen Tchetgen & I. Shpitser, 2014. "Estimation of a semiparametric natural direct effect model incorporating baseline covariates," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 101(4), pages 849-864.
    4. I Díaz & O Savenkov & K Ballman, 2018. "Targeted learning ensembles for optimal individualized treatment rules with time-to-event outcomes," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 105(3), pages 723-738.
    5. S. A. Murphy, 2003. "Optimal dynamic treatment regimes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(2), pages 331-355, May.
    6. Katz, Lawrence & Duncan, Greg J. & Kling, Jeffrey R. & Kessler, Ronald C. & Ludwig, Jens & Sanbonmatsu, Lisa & Liebman, Jeffrey B., 2008. "What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment?," Scholarly Articles 2766959, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    7. Frolich, Markus, 2007. "Nonparametric IV estimation of local average treatment effects with covariates," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 35-75, July.
    8. Ying-Qi Zhao & Donglin Zeng & Eric B. Laber & Michael R. Kosorok, 2015. "New Statistical Learning Methods for Estimating Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(510), pages 583-598, June.
    9. Jeffrey R Kling & Jeffrey B Liebman & Lawrence F Katz, 2007. "Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 83-119, January.
    10. Abadie, Alberto, 2003. "Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 231-263, April.
    11. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2017. "Direct and indirect treatment effects–causal chains and mediation analysis with instrumental variables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1645-1666, November.
    12. Emily L. Butler & Eric B. Laber & Sonia M. Davis & Michael R. Kosorok, 2018. "Incorporating Patient Preferences into Estimation of Optimal Individualized Treatment Rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 18-26, March.
    13. van der Laan Mark J. & Petersen Maya L, 2008. "Direct Effect Models," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-29, October.
    14. Yingqi Zhao & Donglin Zeng & A. John Rush & Michael R. Kosorok, 2012. "Estimating Individualized Treatment Rules Using Outcome Weighted Learning," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(499), pages 1106-1118, September.
    15. Rubin Daniel & van der Laan Mark J., 2007. "A Doubly Robust Censoring Unbiased Transformation," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-21, March.
    16. Zheng Wenjing & van der Laan Mark J., 2012. "Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Natural Direct Effects," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-40, January.
    17. Kasy Maximilian, 2009. "Semiparametrically Efficient Estimation of Conditional Instrumental Variables Parameters," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, June.
    18. Elizabeth L. Ogburn & Andrea Rotnitzky & James M. Robins, 2015. "Doubly robust estimation of the local average treatment effect curve," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 77(2), pages 373-396, March.
    19. Tyler J. VanderWeele & Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, 2017. "Mediation analysis with time varying exposures and mediators," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(3), pages 917-938, June.
    20. Kosuke Imai & Dustin Tingley & Teppei Yamamoto, 2013. "Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 5-51, January.
    21. Kara E. Rudolph & Oleg Sofrygin & Mark J. van der Laan, 2021. "Complier Stochastic Direct Effects: Identification and Robust Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 116(535), pages 1254-1264, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manu Navjeevan & Rodrigo Pinto & Andres Santos, 2023. "Identification and Estimation in a Class of Potential Outcomes Models," Papers 2310.05311, arXiv.org.
    2. Yunan Wu & Lan Wang, 2021. "Resampling‐based confidence intervals for model‐free robust inference on optimal treatment regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 465-476, June.
    3. Zhen Li & Jie Chen & Eric Laber & Fang Liu & Richard Baumgartner, 2023. "Optimal Treatment Regimes: A Review and Empirical Comparison," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 91(3), pages 427-463, December.
    4. Xin Qiu & Donglin Zeng & Yuanjia Wang, 2018. "Estimation and evaluation of linear individualized treatment rules to guarantee performance," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 517-528, June.
    5. Shi, Chengchun & Wan, Runzhe & Song, Ge & Luo, Shikai & Zhu, Hongtu & Song, Rui, 2023. "A multiagent reinforcement learning framework for off-policy evaluation in two-sided markets," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117174, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Kristin A. Linn & Eric B. Laber & Leonard A. Stefanski, 2017. "Interactive -Learning for Quantiles," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(518), pages 638-649, April.
    7. Hyung Park & Eva Petkova & Thaddeus Tarpey & R. Todd Ogden, 2021. "A constrained single‐index regression for estimating interactions between a treatment and covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 506-518, June.
    8. Rebecca Hager & Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Marie Davidian, 2018. "Optimal two‐stage dynamic treatment regimes from a classification perspective with censored survival data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 1180-1192, December.
    9. Yebin Tao & Lu Wang, 2017. "Adaptive contrast weighted learning for multi-stage multi-treatment decision-making," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 145-155, March.
    10. Shuxiao Chen & Bo Zhang, 2021. "Estimating and Improving Dynamic Treatment Regimes With a Time-Varying Instrumental Variable," Papers 2104.07822, arXiv.org.
    11. Q. Clairon & R. Henderson & N. J. Young & E. D. Wilson & C. J. Taylor, 2021. "Adaptive treatment and robust control," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 223-236, March.
    12. Jin Wang & Donglin Zeng & D. Y. Lin, 2022. "Semiparametric single-index models for optimal treatment regimens with censored outcomes," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 744-763, October.
    13. Ruoqing Zhu & Ying-Qi Zhao & Guanhua Chen & Shuangge Ma & Hongyu Zhao, 2017. "Greedy outcome weighted tree learning of optimal personalized treatment rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 391-400, June.
    14. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2017. "Direct and indirect treatment effects–causal chains and mediation analysis with instrumental variables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1645-1666, November.
    15. Tymon Sloczynski & S. Derya Uysal & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge & Derya Uysal, 2022. "Abadie's Kappa and Weighting Estimators of the Local Average Treatment Effect," CESifo Working Paper Series 9715, CESifo.
    16. Yumou Qiu & Jing Tao & Xiao‐Hua Zhou, 2021. "Inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data with high‐dimensional covariates," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(5), pages 1016-1043, November.
    17. Ludwig, Jens & Duncan, Greg J. & Katz, Lawrence F. & Kessler, Ronald & Kling, Jeffrey R. & Gennetian, Lisa A. & Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, 2012. "Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults," Scholarly Articles 11870359, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    18. Weibin Mo & Yufeng Liu, 2022. "Efficient learning of optimal individualized treatment rules for heteroscedastic or misspecified treatment‐free effect models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(2), pages 440-472, April.
    19. Yizhe Xu & Tom H. Greene & Adam P. Bress & Brian C. Sauer & Brandon K. Bellows & Yue Zhang & William S. Weintraub & Andrew E. Moran & Jincheng Shen, 2022. "Estimating the optimal individualized treatment rule from a cost‐effectiveness perspective," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 337-351, March.
    20. Guanglei Hong & Jonah Deutsch & Heather D. Hill, 2013. "Ratio-of-Mediator-Probability Weighting for Causal Mediation Analysis in the Presence of Treatment-by-Mediator Interaction," Working Papers 2013-009, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:s2:p:s573-s589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.