Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

Randomized encouragement designs (REDs) blend encouragements with random assignment to test whether a treated status can be adequately approximated by an instrument that encourages uptake. When participants face barriers to compliance, REDs help separate the effect of being offered treatment from the effect of actually receiving it. The core idea is simple: randomize an encouragement or invitation, which increases the probability of treatment exposure, and analyze outcomes with instrumental variables techniques. Careful planning ensures that the instrument affects the outcome only through the endogenous treatment, satisfying the exclusion restriction. This structure permits estimation of local average treatment effects for compliers, even if noncompliance is widespread.

The practical design of REDs begins with clarifying the target estimand and the population. Researchers should define who qualifies as a complier and what constitutes meaningful uptake. Then, the randomization mechanism for encouragement must be implemented transparently to prevent dynastic effects or selection biases. Beyond randomization, researchers must anticipate the extent of nonadherence, cross-over, and attrition across arms. Pre-specifying the timing of encouragement, the window for treatment exposure, and the primary outcomes reduces analytical ambiguity. Pre-registration, simulated power analyses, and robustness checks should accompany the experimental protocol to strengthen interpretability and credibility of the causal claims.

A central step is selecting an instrument that meaningfully alters treatment propensity without directly affecting outcomes. In REDs, random encouragement is the primary instrument, while barriers such as logistics, costs, or information frictions modulate uptake. The strength of the instrument—how much uptake changes with encouragement—directly influences estimability and precision. A weak instrument yields biased estimates and wide confidence intervals, particularly in small samples. Hence, researchers often pilot test the encouragement mechanism or leverage prior studies to calibrate expectations about compliance gains. Documentation of the mechanism clarifies how the instrument interacts with covariates and outcomes across subgroups.

Another essential consideration is the exclusion restriction, which requires that the encouragement affects the outcome solely through its effect on treatment exposure. In practice, ensuring no direct path from encouragement to outcomes demands thoughtful design: the invitation should be neutral, the delivery method should not itself influence behavior beyond treatment uptake, and any ancillary supports must be equally distributed across arms. When potential direct effects arise, sensitivity analyses help quantify how violations could bias the estimated local average treatment effect. Transparent reporting of these assumptions and their plausible bounds strengthens inference and guides interpretation for policymakers.
Text 4 continued: Additionally, attrition poses a threat to identification if loss to follow-up correlates with encouragement status. Strategies to mitigate this include keeping engagement high through regular contact, offering uniform incentives for survey completion, and employing intent-to-treat analyses alongside per-protocol checks. Researchers should plan for differential attrition by modeling the missingness mechanism and testing whether dropout patterns are related to the instrument. Robust standard errors, clustering at the randomized unit level, and appropriate corrections for multiple comparisons further guard against spurious findings and overconfident conclusions.

Power calculations in REDs must incorporate anticipated noncompliance, which dampens observable treatment effects. When a substantial share of the sample complies only after encouragement, the local average treatment effect estimate becomes more informative about compliers but requires larger samples to achieve precision. Simulations help determine the required sample size by varying uptake rates, effect sizes, and outcome variances. Researchers should also plan interim analyses to monitor accrual and adherence dynamics. An adaptive design, with predefined stopping rules, can optimize resource use while preserving the integrity of randomization. Documentation of all adaptive decisions is essential for reproducibility.

In addition to statistical power, practical constraints shape REDs. Logistics, cost, and ethical considerations influence how and when encouragement is delivered. For rare outcomes or long follow-up periods, extending the observational window can capture meaningful effects, but it may also introduce time-varying confounding. Balancing timeliness with thorough measurement requires careful scheduling of encouragement delivery and follow-up assessments. Engaging local stakeholders, such as clinics or communities, helps align the intervention with real-world contexts. This alignment improves external validity and increases the likelihood that estimated effects translate into policy-relevant recommendations.

The interpretive core of REDs rests on the local average treatment effect (LATE) for compliers. This target parameter assumes monotonicity—the idea that encouragement does not reduce treatment uptake for any participant. Violations of monotonicity complicate interpretation and can bias estimates if defiance or assistance patterns vary systematically. Sensitivity analyses exploring alternative monotonicity assumptions provide a more nuanced view of causal pathways. Framing results within LATE acknowledges the heterogeneity of responses and guides decisions about targeting or scaling the intervention. Clear communication of the population to which results generalize prevents overgeneralization and misapplication.

Robustness checks strengthen the credibility of RED estimates. Placebo tests, falsification exercises, and permutation tests help assess whether observed associations are artifacts of randomization or model misspecification. Heterogeneous treatment effects by subgroups reveal whether certain populations benefit more from encouragement than others. Techniques such as two-stage least squares with robust standard errors and cluster adjustments ensure that standard errors reflect both sampling variability and the structure of the randomized design. Transparent reporting of these checks, including null results, fosters trust and facilitates meta-analytic synthesis.

Reporting in RED studies should balance clarity with technical detail. The manuscript should specify the treatment, instrument, and estimand, along with all core assumptions. Presenting first-stage estimates, the strength of the instrument, and compliance rates provides readers with a sense of precision and feasibility. Effect sizes should be contextualized to the outcome scale and policy relevance, with confidence intervals across main, secondary, and sensitivity analyses. Graphical displays—such as compliant versus noncompliant plots, or exposure-response curves—enhance comprehension. Finally, researchers should discuss limitations tied to the local nature of LATE, potential generalizability concerns, and avenues for future replication.

Ethical considerations are integral to REDs. Informed consent processes must reflect the design's nature, including the possibility that participants receive encouragement but not the treatment. Transparency about potential harms and the distribution of burdens across arms supports autonomy and fairness. Data privacy and security measures are essential, especially when follow-up requires repeated contact. Researchers should also contemplate equity implications: if uptake disparities align with demographic groups, targeted outreach may be warranted to avoid widening gaps. By foregrounding ethics alongside methodological rigor, REDs can advance causal knowledge without compromising participant welfare.

Looking ahead, REDs will benefit from integrating machine learning for adaptive encouragement. Algorithms could tailor encouragement intensity based on early indicators of uptake while preserving randomization integrity. Such approaches must be designed with safeguards to prevent bias or unfair amplification of existing disparities. Collaboration across disciplines—statistics, economics, epidemiology, and behavioral sciences—can yield richer models of how incentives shape decision-making. Researchers should also explore extensions to multi-arm designs, where different encouragement modalities are randomized in parallel. This expansion could illuminate which strategies maximize compliance with minimal cost, facilitating scalable policy interventions.

A durable takeaway is that imperfect compliance need not thwart causal inference. By treating encouragement as an instrument and meticulously attending to assumptions, researchers can extract meaningful estimates that inform policy, program design, and public understanding. The strength of REDs lies in their ability to approximate causal effects in real-world settings where adherence is messy. Through careful planning, robust analysis, and transparent reporting, scientists can derive actionable insights about which incentives effectively shift behavior and under what conditions. Ultimately, REDs offer a practical pathway to rigorous evidence in the presence of imperfect adherence.