Dementia Problem Behavior and the Production of Informal Caregiving Services

Informal caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease spend a considerable amount of time providing care. In this paper, we use Grossman's health production and Becker's time allocation models to develop a model of informal care provision to elderly dementia patients. In our model, time inputs produce caregiving services, which provides utility to the caregiver, but reduces leisure. We assume that time is less productive of services on the margin as the disease progresses. In this framework, an increase in patients' disease severity does not necessarily increase informal caregiver time input. The cost of formal care establishes a reservation price for informal caregiving. When the costs of informal caregiving rise above this reservation level, the patient is institutionalized. We test empirically the effect of deterioration in the patients' condition, proxied by both disease severity and dementia problem behavior, on informal caregiving time. We find that dementia-related problem behaviors and functional limitations significantly increase inputs of informal caregiving time. Patients' problem behavior exerts a modifying effect on functional limitations, and patients' comorbidities have no effect on informal caregiving time.     

Diagnostics for dependence within time series extremes

Summary. The analysis of extreme values within a stationary time series entails various assumptions concerning its long- and short-range dependence. We present a range of new diagnostic tools for assessing whether these assumptions are appropriate and for identifying structure within extreme events. These tools are based on tail characteristics of joint survivor functions but can be implemented by using existing estimation methods for extremes of univariate independent and identically distributed variables. Our diagnostic aids are illustrated through theoretical examples, simulation studies and by application to rainfall and exchange rate data. On the basis of these diagnostics we can explain characteristics that are found in the observed extreme events of these series and also gain insight into the properties of events that are more extreme than those observed.     

Choice of the primary analysis in longitudinal clinical trials

Missing data, and the bias they can cause, are an almost ever‐present concern in clinical trials. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach has been frequently utilized to handle missing data in clinical trials, and is often specified in conjunction with analysis of variance (LOCF ANOVA) for the primary analysis. Considerable advances in statistical methodology, and in our ability to implement these methods, have been made in recent years. Likelihood‐based, mixed‐effects model approaches implemented under the missing at random (MAR) framework are now easy to implement, and are commonly used to analyse clinical trial data. Furthermore, such approaches are more robust to the biases from missing data, and provide better control of Type I and Type II errors than LOCF ANOVA. Empirical research and analytic proof have demonstrated that the behaviour of LOCF is uncertain, and in many situations it has not been conservative. Using LOCF as a composite measure of safety, tolerability and efficacy can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the effectiveness of a drug. This approach also violates the fundamental basis of statistics as it involves testing an outcome that is not a physical parameter of the population, but rather a quantity that can be influenced by investigator behaviour, trial design, etc. Practice should shift away from using LOCF ANOVA as the primary analysis and focus on likelihood‐based, mixed‐effects model approaches developed under the MAR framework, with missing not at random methods used to assess robustness of the primary analysis. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Health technology assessment between our health care system and our health

In this contribution, I wish to explore the potential of health technology assessment and ethics for increasing our capacity to pre-empt the shortcomings and undesired consequences of modern health care while maintaining its benefits. Central is the presumption that in case of some health problems this cannot be done unless we explicitly reconsider some features of the modern health care system, especially those related to its strong reliance on scientific rationality and the strong role played by medical professionals. So as to both maintain the benefits of advanced health care and ensure that it produces less reason for concern, we need to reconsider our approach to rationality—and maybe even the way in which we build our health care system around that rationality. That is, we need to introduce an element of reflexivity. Two types of circumstances are being explored in which such reflexivity may prove worthwhile: controversies on side effects, and persistent problems encountered in optimising health care. Drawing on brief discussions of typical cases, we explore the potential of reflexive HTA and its methodical prerequisites. We conclude that ethicists may contribute to reflexive HTA, if they combine a hermeneutic—and often also participative—methodology with a solid understanding of the relation between the health problem under scrutiny and more general critique of the health care system. Insights from the areas of science and technology studies, as well as from social philosophy may be critical items in their tool kit.     

An introduction to econometric applications of empirical process theory for dependent random variables

This paper discusses some uses in econometrics of empirical process theory for dependent rendom variables. Examples considered include non-standard parametric hypotheses tests and semiparametric estimation. The application of bracketing functional limit results is discussed in some detail     

A modified random-effect procedure for combining risk difference in sets of 2×2 tables from clinical trials

Summary Meta-analyses of sets of clinical trials often combine risk differences from several 2×2 tables according to a random-effects model. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects procedure, widely used for estimating the populaton mean risk difference, weights the risk difference from each primary study inversely proportional to an estimate of its variance (the sum of the between-study variance and the conditional within-study variance). Because those weights are not independent of the risk differences, however, the procedure sometimes exhibits bias and unnatural behavior. The present paper proposes a modified weighting scheme that uses the unconditional within-study variance to avoid this source of bias. The modified procedure has variance closer to that available from weighting by ideal weights when such weights are known. We studied the modified procedure in extensive simulation experiments using situations whose parameters resemble those of actual studies in medical research. For comparison we also included two unbiased procedures, the unweighted mean and a sample-size-weighted mean; their relative variability depends on the extent of heterogeneity among the primary studies. An example illustrates the application of the procedures to actual data and the differences among the results. This research was supported by Grant HS 05936 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to Harvard University.     

Sexual identity in the ghetto

The more things change, the worse they get.Presented April 18, 1991, Duke University, at the Department of Psychiatry's Grand Rounds, this paper condenses, integrates and updates the author's earlier publication. Acknowledgement and thanks for funding and professional sponsorship of the four research studies this paper draws from are selectively due to the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, the Edgar Stern Family Fund, The National Institute for Mental Health, the Baltimore-Washington Institute for Psychoanalysis and the Department of Psychiatry, Children's Hospital National Medical Center.