Abstract
Nonadherence to assigned treatment jeopardizes the power and interpretability of intent-to-treat comparisons from clinical trial data and continues to be an issue for effectiveness studies, despite their pragmatic emphasis. We posit that new approaches to design need to complement developments in methods for causal inference to address nonadherence, in both experimental and practice settings. This paper considers the conventional study design for psychiatric research and other medical contexts, in which subjects are randomized to treatments that are fixed throughout the trial and presents an alternative that converts the fixed treatments into an adaptive intervention that reflects best practice. The key element is the introduction of an adaptive decision point midway into the study to address a patient's reluctance to remain on treatment before completing a full-length trial of medication. The clinical uncertainty about the appropriate adaptation prompts a second randomization at the new decision point to evaluate relevant options. Additionally, the standard 'all-or-none' principal stratification (PS) framework is applied to the first stage of the design to address treatment discontinuation that occurs too early for a midtrial adaptation. Drawing upon the adaptive intervention features, we develop assumptions to identify the PS causal estimand and to introduce restrictions on outcome distributions to simplify expectation-maximization calculations. We evaluate the performance of the PS setup, with particular attention to the role played by a binary covariate. The results emphasize the importance of collecting covariate data for use in design and analysis. We consider the generality of our approach beyond the setting of psychiatric research.