Optimal estimation of generalized causal effects in cluster-randomized trials with multiple outcomes

The non-prioritized setting involves multiple outcomes that do not admit a hierarchical order of importance, i.e., the Q outcomes (Y_1,\ldots,Y_Q) are compared simultaneously rather than sequentially. For example, consider a socioeconomic investigation in which the primary outcomes of interest include income per unit time (Y_1), satisfaction with the working environment (Y_2), and overall quality of life (Y_3), and the intervention under study is a specific employment training program. In this context, the effectiveness of the intervention is evaluated based on an aggregate summary of the comparative results for (Y_1, Y_2, Y_3) between the two groups. Accordingly, for each outcome Y_q that is measured on a different scale, one may specify an outcome-specific contrast based on, for instance, the Heaviside step function w_q(u_q, v_q) = \mathbbm{1}(u_q > v_q) + 0.5 \mathbbm{1}(u_q = v_q)- \mathbbm{1}(u_q < v_q). The overall contrast function can then be defined as w(\bm{u}, \bm{v}) = \sum_{q=1}^3 \omega_q w_q(u_q, v_q), where \omega_q quantifies the pre-specified relative contribution of each outcome to the overall assessment.

With prioritized outcomes, a consensus-based hierarchical ordering of importance is imposed on (Y_1,\ldots,Y_Q). For example, in a time-to-event clinical trial, the time to the most important event (Y_1), e.g., death, is used to determine the “winner.” If this comparison is inconclusive (for instance, if neither patient experiences death during their shared follow-up period), the comparison proceeds to the times to the second most important event (Y_2), e.g., hospitalization, and so forth. This hierarchy of clinical importance among events can be formally represented through a joint comparison contrast function w(\bm{u},\bm{v}) = \mathbbm{1}(\bm{u} \succ \bm{v}), where ‘\succ’ denotes a user-specified partial order, and \bm{u} \succ \bm{v} indicates that outcome vector \bm{u} is more favorable than outcome vector \bm{v} [bebu2016large]. Specifically, with Q=2 and (Y_1,Y_2), one can define this partial order as w(\bm{u},\bm{v}) = \mathbbm{1}(\bm{u} \succ \bm{v}) \equiv \mathbbm{1}(u_1>v_1) + \mathbbm{1}(u_1=v_1)\mathbbm{1}(u_2>v_2).

The Pareto partial order defines a relationship where one element “Pareto dominates” another if it’s superior in at least one criterion and not worse in any other, thus creating a partial ordering (but not in a sequential comparison scheme) with some options remaining incomparable. For example, in a smoking cessation study comparing two intervention strategies, lung cancer incidence (Y_1), nicotine dependence severity (Y_2), and healthcare costs (Y_3) can be of joint interest. Under a Pareto partial order, one intervention is deemed preferable to another if it exhibits a strictly superior value in at least one of the three outcomes, while being no worse in any of the remaining. In this case, the contrast function w(\bm{u},\bm{v})=\mathbbm{1}(\bm{u}\preceq_P\bm{v}), where \mathbbm{1}(\bm{u}\preceq_P\bm{v})=1 if u_q\leq v_q for all q=1,2,3 and u_q< v_q for some q=1,2,3, and \mathbbm{1}(\bm{u}\preceq_P\bm{v})=0 otherwise.

Consider the setting where w(\bm{Y}_{ij},\bm{Y}_{kl})=\mathbbm{1}(\bm{Y}_{ij}\preceq_P \bm{Y}_{kl}), the Pareto partial order contrast function discussed in Example 3. To implement the above strategy for a PIM working model for \zeta_{ik,a}=\mathbb{E}\{\overline w(\mathbf Y_i,\mathbf Y_k)|A_i=a,A_k=1-a,\mathbf X_i,\mathbf X_k,\bm{C}_i,\bm{C}_k,N_i,N_k\}, let \bm{U}_{ij}=(A_i,\bm{X}_{ij}^\top,\overline{\mathbf X}_i^\top,\bm{C}_i^\top, N_i)^\top. Then, we adopt the following model:

where A_i=a, A_k=1-a, and \bm{\vartheta} = (\beta_A, \bm{\beta}_{\bm{X}}^\top, \bm{\beta}_{\overline{\mathbf X}}^\top, \bm{\beta}_{\bm{C}}^\top, \beta_N)^\top. Fitting the above model with \mathbbm{1}(\bm{Y}_{ij}\preceq_P \bm{Y}_{kl}) on \bm{U}_{ij}-\bm{U}_{kl}, we obtain \widehat\mathbb{E}\{\mathbbm{1}(\bm{Y}_{ij}\preceq_P \bm{Y}_{kl})|\bm{U}_{ij},\bm{U}_{kl}\}=g^{-1}\{(\bm{U}_{ij}-\bm{U}_{kl})^\top\widehat\bm{\vartheta}\}, where \widehat\bm{\vartheta} = (\widehat\beta_A, \widehat\bm{\beta}_{\bm{X}}^\top, \widehat\bm{\beta}_{\overline{\mathbf X}}^\top, \widehat\bm{\beta}_{\bm{C}}^\top, \widehat\beta_N)^\top. The estimate of \zeta_{ik,a} is obtained by taking average over each pair of (i,j) and (k,l) for fixed i and k, i.e., \widehat\zeta_{ik,a}=(N_iN_k)^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\sum_{l=1}^{N_k}\widehat\mathbb{E}\{\mathbbm{1}(\bm{Y}_{ij}\preceq_P \bm{Y}_{kl})|\bm{U}_{ij},\bm{U}_{kl}\}=(N_iN_k)^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\sum_{l=1}^{N_k}g^{-1}\{(\bm{U}_{ij}-\bm{U}_{kl})^\top\widehat\bm{\vartheta}\}.

Consider a setting where m=10 and |\mathfrak{I}^s|=3. We can first form the partition \mathfrak{I}^{\mathrm{si}}=\{\mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_2^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_3^{\mathrm{si}}\} with \mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}}=\{1,2,3\}, \mathcal{I}_2^{\mathrm{si}}=\{4,5,6,7\}, and \mathcal{I}_3^{\mathrm{si}}=\{8,9,10\}. Then, the partition \mathfrak{I}^{\mathrm{pr}} is formed as \{(\mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}}),(\mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_2^{\mathrm{si}}),(\mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}},\allowbreak\mathcal{I}_3^{\mathrm{si}}),(\mathcal{I}_2^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_2^{\mathrm{si}}),(\mathcal{I}_2^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_3^{\mathrm{si}}),(\mathcal{I}_3^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_3^{\mathrm{si}})\}. For \mathfrak{I}^{\mathrm{pr}}, elements formed by \mathcal{I}_{s_1}^{\mathrm{si}} and \mathcal{I}_{s_2}^{\mathrm{si}} with s_1<s_2 are the Cartesian product of \mathcal{I}_{s_1}^{\mathrm{si}} and \mathcal{I}_{s_2}^{\mathrm{si}}. For instance,

Elements formed by \mathcal{I}_s^{\mathrm{si}} itself need to exclude pairs consisting of the same indices, e.g., (\mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}},\mathcal{I}_1^{\mathrm{si}})=\{(1,2),(1,3),(2,3)\}. According to this sampling-splitting scheme, all \binom{10}{2}=45 possible pairs are divided into |\mathfrak{I}^{\mathrm{pr}}|=6 subsets.