BACKGROUND: Intervention effects estimated from nonrandomized intervention studies are plagued by biases, yet social or structural intervention studies are rarely randomized. There are underutilized statistical methods available to mitigate biases due to self-selection, missing data, and confounding in longitudinal, observational data permitting estimation of causal effects. We demonstrate the use of Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) to evaluate the effect of participating in a combined clinical and social sexually transmitted infection/human immunodeficiency virus prevention intervention on reduction of incident chlamydia and gonorrhea infections among sex workers in Brazil. METHODS: We demonstrate the step-by-step use of IPW, including presentation of the theoretical background, data set up, model selection for weighting, application of weights, estimation of effects using varied modeling procedures, and discussion of assumptions for use of IPW. RESULTS: A total of 420 sex workers contributed 840 data points on incident chlamydia and gonorrhea infection. Participators were compared with nonparticipators following application of inverse probability weights to correct for differences in covariate patterns between exposure groups and between those who remained in the intervention and those who were lost-to-follow-up. Estimators using 4 model selection procedures provided estimates of intervention effect between odds ratio 0.43 (95% CI, 0.22- 0.85) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.26 -1.1). CONCLUSIONS: After correcting for selection bias, loss-to-follow-up, and confounding, our analysis suggests a protective effect of participating in the intervention. Evaluations of behavioral, social, and multilevel interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infection can benefit by introduction of weighting methods such as IPW.
BACKGROUND: Intervention effects estimated from nonrandomized intervention studies are plagued by biases, yet social or structural intervention studies are rarely randomized. There are underutilized statistical methods available to mitigate biases due to self-selection, missing data, and confounding in longitudinal, observational data permitting estimation of causal effects. We demonstrate the use of Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) to evaluate the effect of participating in a combined clinical and social sexually transmitted infection/human immunodeficiency virus prevention intervention on reduction of incident chlamydia and gonorrhea infections among sex workers in Brazil. METHODS: We demonstrate the step-by-step use of IPW, including presentation of the theoretical background, data set up, model selection for weighting, application of weights, estimation of effects using varied modeling procedures, and discussion of assumptions for use of IPW. RESULTS: A total of 420 sex workers contributed 840 data points on incident chlamydia and gonorrheainfection. Participators were compared with nonparticipators following application of inverse probability weights to correct for differences in covariate patterns between exposure groups and between those who remained in the intervention and those who were lost-to-follow-up. Estimators using 4 model selection procedures provided estimates of intervention effect between odds ratio 0.43 (95% CI, 0.22- 0.85) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.26 -1.1). CONCLUSIONS: After correcting for selection bias, loss-to-follow-up, and confounding, our analysis suggests a protective effect of participating in the intervention. Evaluations of behavioral, social, and multilevel interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infection can benefit by introduction of weighting methods such as IPW.
Authors: Tobias Kurth; Alexander M Walker; Robert J Glynn; K Arnold Chan; J Michael Gaziano; Klaus Berger; James M Robins Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-12-21 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jessica R Iyer; Annelies Van Rie; Sabina A Haberlen; Mutsa Mudavanhu; Lillian Mutunga; Jean Bassett; Sheree R Schwartz Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-02-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Juan C Mira; Joseph Cuschieri; Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti; Zhongkai Wang; Gabriela L Ghita; Tyler J Loftus; Julie A Stortz; Steven L Raymond; Jennifer D Lanz; Laura V Hennessy; Babette Brumback; Philip A Efron; Henry V Baker; Frederick A Moore; Ronald V Maier; Lyle L Moldawer; Scott C Brakenridge Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sharon Sznitman; Peter A Vanable; Michael P Carey; Michael Hennessy; Larry K Brown; Robert F Valois; Bonita F Stanton; Laura F Salazar; Ralph Diclemente; Naomi Farber; Daniel Romer Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Sheri A Lippman; Magda Chinaglia; Angela A Donini; Juan Diaz; Arthur Reingold; Deanna L Kerrigan Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Hisani N Horne; Darcy F Phelan-Emrick; Craig E Pollack; Diane Markakis; Jennifer Wenzel; Saifuddin Ahmed; Mary A Garza; Gary R Shapiro; Lee R Bone; Lawrence B Johnson; Jean G Ford Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Romain Neugebauer; Bruce Fireman; Jason A Roy; Marsha A Raebel; Gregory A Nichols; Patrick J O'Connor Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Hannah H Leslie; Deborah A Karasek; Laura F Harris; Emily Chang; Naila Abdulrahim; May Maloba; Megan J Huchko Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240