Literature DB >> 22304484

Combining the regression discontinuity design and propensity score-based weighting to improve causal inference in program evaluation.

Ariel Linden1, John L Adams.   

Abstract

The regression discontinuity (RD) design is considered to be the closest to a randomized trial that can be applied in non-experimental settings. The design relies on a cut-off point on a continuous baseline variable to assign individuals to treatment. The individuals just to the right and left of the cut-off are assumed to be exchangeable - as in a randomized trial. Any observed discontinuity in the relationship between the assignment variable and outcome is therefore considered evidence of a treatment effect. In this paper, we describe key advances in the RD design over the past decade and illustrate their implementation using data from a health management intervention. We then introduce the propensity score-based weighting technique as a complement to the RD design to correct for imbalances in baseline characteristics between treated and non-treated groups that may bias RD results. We find that the weighting strategy outperforms standard regression covariate adjustment in the present data. One clear advantage of the weighting technique over regression covariate adjustment is that we can directly inspect the degree to which balance was achieved. Because of its relative simplicity and tremendous utility, the RD design (either alone or combined with propensity score weighting adjustment) should be considered as an alternative approach to evaluate health management program effectiveness when using observational data.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22304484     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01768.x

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


  6 in total

1.  Multilevel Interventions Targeting Obesity: Research Recommendations for Vulnerable Populations.

Authors:  June Stevens; Charlotte Pratt; Josephine Boyington; Cheryl Nelson; Kimberly P Truesdale; Dianne S Ward; Leslie Lytle; Nancy E Sherwood; Thomas N Robinson; Shirley Moore; Shari Barkin; Ying Kuen Cheung; David M Murray
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Alternatives to Randomized Control Trial Designs for Community-Based Prevention Evaluation.

Authors:  David Henry; Patrick Tolan; Deborah Gorman-Smith; Michael Schoeny
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2017-08

3.  Traditional Medicare Versus Private Insurance: How Spending, Volume, And Price Change At Age Sixty-Five.

Authors:  Jacob Wallace; Zirui Song
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Assessing regression to the mean effects in health care initiatives.

Authors:  Ariel Linden
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-09-28       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 5.  Natural Experiments: An Overview of Methods, Approaches, and Contributions to Public Health Intervention Research.

Authors:  Peter Craig; Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Alastair Leyland; Frank Popham
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 21.981

6.  Evaluating the impact of social determinants, conditional cash transfers and primary health care on HIV/AIDS: Study protocol of a retrospective and forecasting approach based on the data integration with a cohort of 100 million Brazilians.

Authors:  Davide Rasella; Gabriel Alves de Sampaio Morais; Rodrigo Volmir Anderle; Andréa Ferreira da Silva; Iracema Lua; Ronaldo Coelho; Felipe Alves Rubio; Laio Magno; Daiane Machado; Julia Pescarini; Luis Eugênio Souza; James Macinko; Inês Dourado
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.