Kerry M Green1, Elizabeth A Stuart2. 1. Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health. 2. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study provides guidance on how propensity score methods can be combined with moderation analyses (i.e., effect modification) to examine subgroup differences in potential causal effects in nonexperimental studies. As a motivating example, we focus on how depression may affect subsequent substance use differently for men and women. METHOD: Using data from a longitudinal community cohort study (N = 952) of urban African Americans with assessments in childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and midlife, we estimate the influence of depression by young adulthood on substance use outcomes in midlife, and whether that influence varies by gender. We illustrate and compare 5 different techniques for estimating subgroup effects using propensity score methods, including separate propensity score models and matching for men and women, a joint propensity score model for men and women with matching separately and together by gender, and a joint male/female propensity score model that includes theoretically important gender interactions with matching separately and together by gender. RESULTS: Analyses showed that estimating separate models for men and women yielded the best balance and, therefore, is a preferred technique when subgroup analyses are of interest, at least in this data. RESULTS also showed substance use consequences of depression but no significant gender differences. CONCLUSIONS: It is critical to prespecify subgroup effects before the estimation of propensity scores and to check balance within subgroups regardless of the type of propensity score model used. RESULTS also suggest that depression may affect multiple substance use outcomes in midlife for both men and women relatively equally. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: This study provides guidance on how propensity score methods can be combined with moderation analyses (i.e., effect modification) to examine subgroup differences in potential causal effects in nonexperimental studies. As a motivating example, we focus on how depression may affect subsequent substance use differently for men and women. METHOD: Using data from a longitudinal community cohort study (N = 952) of urban African Americans with assessments in childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and midlife, we estimate the influence of depression by young adulthood on substance use outcomes in midlife, and whether that influence varies by gender. We illustrate and compare 5 different techniques for estimating subgroup effects using propensity score methods, including separate propensity score models and matching for men and women, a joint propensity score model for men and women with matching separately and together by gender, and a joint male/female propensity score model that includes theoretically important gender interactions with matching separately and together by gender. RESULTS: Analyses showed that estimating separate models for men and women yielded the best balance and, therefore, is a preferred technique when subgroup analyses are of interest, at least in this data. RESULTS also showed substance use consequences of depression but no significant gender differences. CONCLUSIONS: It is critical to prespecify subgroup effects before the estimation of propensity scores and to check balance within subgroups regardless of the type of propensity score model used. RESULTS also suggest that depression may affect multiple substance use outcomes in midlife for both men and women relatively equally. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Kerry M Green; Kate E Fothergill; Judith A Robertson; Katarzyna A Zebrak; Deliya R Banda; Margaret E Ensminger Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Christopher T Rentsch; David A Fiellin; Kendall J Bryant; Amy C Justice; Janet P Tate Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-02-03 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Sanders Chang; Peter May; Nathan E Goldstein; Juan Wisnivesky; Kenneth Rosenzweig; R Sean Morrison; Kavita V Dharmarajan Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Peter May; Charles Normand; J Brian Cassel; Egidio Del Fabbro; Robert L Fine; Reagan Menz; Corey A Morrison; Joan D Penrod; Chessie Robinson; R Sean Morrison Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Susan C Miller; Julie C Lima; Orna Intrator; Edward Martin; Janet Bull; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-04-22 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Megan Shepherd-Banigan; Valerie A Smith; Matthew L Maciejewski; Karen M Stechuchak; Susan Nicole Hastings; G Darryl Wieland; Katherine E M Miller; Margaret Kabat; Jennifer Henius; Margaret Campbell-Kotler; Courtney Harold Van Houtven Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2018-07
Authors: Peter May; Melissa M Garrido; J Brian Cassel; Amy S Kelley; Diane E Meier; Charles Normand; Lee Stefanis; Thomas J Smith; R Sean Morrison Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.301