Representation and Extrapolation: Evidence from Clinical Trials
This article examines the consequences and causes of low enrollment of Black patients in clinical trials. We develop a simple model of similarity-based extrapolation that predicts that evidence is more relevant for decision-making by physicians and patients when it is more representative of the group that is being treated. This generates the key result that the perceived benefit of a medicine for a group depends not only on the average benefit from a trial, but also on the share of patients from that group who were enrolled in the trial. In survey experiments, we find that physicians who care for Black patients are more willing to prescribe drugs tested in representative samples, an effect substantial enough to close observed gaps in the prescribing rates of new medicines. Black patients update more on drug efficacy when the sample that the drug is tested on is more representative, reducing Black-White patient gaps in beliefs about whether the drug will work as described. Despite these benefits of representative data, our framework and evidence suggest that those who have benefited more from past medical breakthroughs are less costly to enroll in the present, leading to persistence in who is represented in the evidence base.
Published Versions
Marcella Alsan & Maya Durvasula & Harsh Gupta & Joshua Schwartzstein & Heidi Williams, 2024. "Representation and Extrapolation: Evidence from Clinical Trials," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol 139(1), pages 575-635. citation courtesy of 
Related
Mentioned in the News
More from NBER
In addition to working papers, the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter, the NBER Digest, the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability, the Bulletin on Health, and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship — as well as online conference reports, video lectures, and interviews.
