Literature DB >> 20973870

Applying a propensity score-based weighting model to interrupted time series data: improving causal inference in programme evaluation.

Ariel Linden1, John L Adams.   

Abstract

Often, when conducting programme evaluations or studying the effects of policy changes, researchers may only have access to aggregated time series data, presented as observations spanning both the pre- and post-intervention periods. The most basic analytic model using these data requires only a single group and models the intervention effect using repeated measurements of the dependent variable. This model controls for regression to the mean and is likely to detect a treatment effect if it is sufficiently large. However, many potential sources of bias still remain. Adding one or more control groups to this model could strengthen causal inference if the groups are comparable on pre-intervention covariates and level and trend of the dependent variable. If this condition is not met, the validity of the study findings could be called into question. In this paper we describe a propensity score-based weighted regression model, which overcomes these limitations by weighting the control groups to represent the average outcome that the treatment group would have exhibited in the absence of the intervention. We illustrate this technique studying cigarette sales in California before and after the passage of Proposition 99 in California in 1989. While our results were similar to those of the Synthetic Control method, the weighting approach has the advantage of being technically less complicated, rooted in regression techniques familiar to most researchers, easy to implement using any basic statistical software, may accommodate any number of treatment units, and allows for greater flexibility in the choice of treatment effect estimators.
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20973870     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01504.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  40 in total

1.  Design, analysis, power, and sample size calculation for three-phase interrupted time series analysis in evaluation of health policy interventions.

Authors:  Bo Zhang; Wei Liu; Stephenie C Lemon; Bruce A Barton; Melissa A Fischer; Colleen Lawrence; Elizabeth J Rahn; Maria I Danila; Kenneth G Saag; Paul A Harris; Jeroan J Allison
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 2.431

2.  Food insecurity in Nunavut following the introduction of Nutrition North Canada.

Authors:  Andrée-Anne Fafard St-Germain; Tracey Galloway; Valerie Tarasuk
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Addressing Patients' Mental Health Needs at a Student-Run Free Clinic.

Authors:  Olivia Knoll; Rohini Chakravarthy; Joshua D Cockroft; Nicolas Baddour; Shannon Jordan; Eleanor Weaver; Michael J Fowler; Robert F Miller
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2020-05-21

4.  Randomised controlled trial of real-time feedback and brief coaching to reduce indoor smoking.

Authors:  Melbourne F Hovell; John Bellettiere; Sandy Liles; Benjamin Nguyen; Vincent Berardi; Christine Johnson; Georg E Matt; John Malone; Marie C Boman-Davis; Penelope J E Quintana; Saori Obayashi; Dale Chatfield; Robert Robinson; Elaine J Blumberg; Weg M Ongkeko; Neil E Klepeis; Suzanne C Hughes
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Impact of the Image Gently® Campaign on Computerized Tomography Use for Evaluation of Pediatric Nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Courtney S Streur; Paul J Lin; John M Hollingsworth; Neil S Kamdar; Kate H Kraft
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Haiden A Huskamp; Kenneth Duckworth; Jeffrey Simmons; Zirui Song; Michael Chernew; Colleen L Barry
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2014-12-01

7.  Methodological Challenges and Proposed Solutions for Evaluating Opioid Policy Effectiveness.

Authors:  Megan S Schuler; Beth Ann Griffin; Magdalena Cerdá; Emma E McGinty; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2020-11-12

Review 8.  The state of the science in opioid policy research.

Authors:  Megan S Schuler; Sara E Heins; Rosanna Smart; Beth Ann Griffin; David Powell; Elizabeth A Stuart; Bryce Pardo; Sierra Smucker; Stephen W Patrick; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Bradley D Stein
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2020-06-27       Impact factor: 4.492

Review 9.  A critical review of methods to evaluate the impact of FDA regulatory actions.

Authors:  Becky A Briesacher; Stephen B Soumerai; Fang Zhang; Sengwee Toh; Susan E Andrade; Joann L Wagner; Azadeh Shoaibi; Jerry H Gurwitz
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 2.890

10.  Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners.

Authors:  Lihua Li; Meaghan S Cuerden; Bian Liu; Salimah Shariff; Arsh K Jain; Madhu Mazumdar
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2021-02-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.