Correcting for Non-adherence in a Randomized Study of Hip Protectors to Prevent Fractures
Public DepositedAdd to collection
You do not have access to any existing collections. You may create a new collection.
Downloadable Content
Download PDFCitation
MLA
Gill, Karminder S. Correcting for Non-adherence In a Randomized Study of Hip Protectors to Prevent Fractures. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010. https://doi.org/10.17615/q1d8-dp56APA
Gill, K. (2010). Correcting for Non-adherence in a Randomized Study of Hip Protectors to Prevent Fractures. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://doi.org/10.17615/q1d8-dp56Chicago
Gill, Karminder S. 2010. Correcting for Non-Adherence In a Randomized Study of Hip Protectors to Prevent Fractures. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://doi.org/10.17615/q1d8-dp56- Last Modified
- March 20, 2019
- Creator
-
Gill, Karminder S.
- Affiliation: Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Epidemiology
- Abstract
- Between October 2002 and October 2004 the Hip Impact Protection Project (HIP PRO) cluster randomized 1042 nursing home residents to wear hip protectors on either the left or right hip; residents were followed for 676 person-years of observation. The intent-to-treat (ITT) incidence rate ratio, comparing protected to unprotected hips, was 1.23 (95% confidence limit (CL): 0.65, 2.34); overall adherence was 74%. When non-adherence is substantial an ITT analysis estimates the effectiveness of treatment in a mixed population comprised of both compliers and non-compliers and, therefore, under-estimates the etiologic effect of treatment to the extent that the study population is comprised of non-compliers. Because of the problems inherent to ITT analyses of studies with non-trivial amounts of non-adherence, there have been calls to supplement the ITT effect estimate with adherence corrected effect estimates. Three relatively new methods in the epidemiology literature correct for non-adherence in randomized studies, and provide unbiased effect estimates: marginal structural models (using inverse probability-of-censoring weights (IPCWs)), structural nested models, and instrumental variable analysis. We employed IPCWs to correct for non-adherence in the HIP PRO study under an assumption that we had measured and correctly modeled all important joint determinants of adherence and hip fracture, and obtained a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% CL: 0.13, 2.40). Under a structural nested modeling approach, we employed a rank-preserving structural failure time model to identify the survival difference that would have been observed had all participants adhered to their assigned treatment. The factor by which time to a hip fracture was expanded under continuous exposure to hip protectors was 2.41 (95% CL: 0.31, 18.7), assuming a Weibull distribution for time to hip fracture. The estimated hazard ratio under constant exposure was 0.46 (95% CL: 0.07, 2.84). Using data from the HIP PRO study, we found apparent differences in results between the ITT analysis and analyses correcting for non-adherence. We do not take the adherence corrected results as a complete reversal of the prior analysis; rather, we see these results as supplementing the ITT analysis.
- Date of publication
- December 2010
- DOI
- Resource type
- Rights statement
- In Copyright
- Note
- "... in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Epidemiology of the School of Public Health."
- Advisor
- Cole, Stephen
- Language
- Publisher
- Place of publication
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Access right
- Open access
- Date uploaded
- March 18, 2013
Relations
- Parents:
This work has no parents.
Items
Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Visibility | Actions |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019-04-08 | Public | Download |