N L Fleischer1, A V Diez Roux. 1. Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health, 3rd Floor SPH Tower, 109 Observatory St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, USA. adiezrou@umich.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Directed acyclic graphs, or DAGs, are a useful graphical tool in epidemiologic research that can help identify appropriate analytical strategies in addition to potential unintended consequences of commonly used methods such as conditioning on mediators. The use of DAGs can be particularly informative in the study of the causal effects of social factors on health. METHODS: The authors consider four specific scenarios in which DAGs may be useful to neighbourhood health effects researchers: (1) identifying variables that need to be adjusted for in estimating neighbourhood health effects, (2) identifying the unintended consequences of estimating "direct" effects by conditioning on a mediator, (3) using DAGs to understand possible sources and consequences of selection bias in neighbourhood health effects research, and (4) using DAGs to identify the consequences of adjustment for variables affected by prior exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present simplified sample DAGs for each scenario and discuss the insights that can be gleaned from the DAGs in each case and the implications these have for analytical approaches.
BACKGROUND: Directed acyclic graphs, or DAGs, are a useful graphical tool in epidemiologic research that can help identify appropriate analytical strategies in addition to potential unintended consequences of commonly used methods such as conditioning on mediators. The use of DAGs can be particularly informative in the study of the causal effects of social factors on health. METHODS: The authors consider four specific scenarios in which DAGs may be useful to neighbourhood health effects researchers: (1) identifying variables that need to be adjusted for in estimating neighbourhood health effects, (2) identifying the unintended consequences of estimating "direct" effects by conditioning on a mediator, (3) using DAGs to understand possible sources and consequences of selection bias in neighbourhood health effects research, and (4) using DAGs to identify the consequences of adjustment for variables affected by prior exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present simplified sample DAGs for each scenario and discuss the insights that can be gleaned from the DAGs in each case and the implications these have for analytical approaches.
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; Salma Shariff-Marco; Mindy DeRouen; Theresa H M Keegan; Irene H Yen; Mahasin Mujahid; William A Satariano; Sally L Glaser Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hannah L F Cooper; Kimberly Jacob Arriola; Regine Haardörfer; Colleen M McBride Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Marsha E Samson; Swann Arp Adams; Caroline M Mulatya; Jiajia Zhang; Charles L Bennett; James Hebert; Susan E Steck Journal: Maturitas Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 4.342