Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 1/2018

29.11.2017

Using entropy balancing to strengthen an observational cohort study design: lessons learned from an evaluation of a complex multi-state federal demonstration

verfasst von: William J. Parish, Vincent Keyes, Christopher Beadles, Amy Kandilov

Erschienen in: Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

We conducted an evaluation of a patient-centered medical home demonstration sponsored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We implemented a quasi-experimental pre-post with a comparison group design. Traditional propensity score weighting failed to achieve balance (exchangeability) between the two groups on several critical characteristics. In response, we incorporated a relatively new alternative known as entropy balancing. Our objective is to share lessons learned from using entropy balancing in a quasi-experimental study design. We document the advantages and challenges with using entropy balancing. We also describe a set of best practices, and we present a series of illustrative analyses that empirically demonstrate the performance of entropy balancing relative to traditional propensity score weighting. We compare alternative approaches based on: (i) covariate balance (e.g., standardized differences); (ii) overlap in conditional treatment probabilities; and (iii) the distribution of weights. Our comparison of overlap is based on a novel approach we developed that uses entropy balancing weights to calculate a pseudo-propensity score. In many situations, entropy balancing provides remarkably superior covariate balance compared to traditional propensity score weighting methods. Entropy balancing is also preferred because it does not require extensive iterative manual searching for an optimal propensity score specification. However, we demonstrate that there are some situations where entropy balancing “fails”. Specifically, there are instances where entropy balancing achieves adequate covariate balance only by using a distribution of weights that dramatically up-weights a small set of observations, giving them a disproportionately large and undesirable influence.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Exchangeability refers to a technical condition where treatment and comparison groups are equivalent in terms of all observed and unobserved dimensions that are related to the receipt of treatment and the outcome of interest. Covariate balance refers to an assessment the similarity of all observed dimensions across treatment and comparison observations. Thus, assessments of covariate balance support whether exchangeability is a reasonable assumption to make.
 
2
For an overview of alternative propensity score methods, we refer the reader to Austin (2011).
 
3
Brookhart et al. (2006) recommend including anything correlated with the outcome, and excluding anything that is only correlated with treatment assignment. However, beyond this there is little guidance.
 
4
In the MAPCP Demonstration group we could perfectly identify practices. However, in the comparison groups, we were only able to identify groups of providers within a tax identification number. Thus, it was difficult to compare practice size calculations across the comparison group and MAPCP Demonstration group.
 
5
R has some packages that can be used to do this (TWANG and OPTMATCH).
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C.: The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med. Decis. Mak 29, 661–667 (2009a)CrossRef Austin, P.C.: The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med. Decis. Mak 29, 661–667 (2009a)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C.: Using the standardized difference to compare the prevalence of a binary variable between two groups in observational research. Commun. Stat.-Simul. Comput. 38, 1228–1234 (2009b)CrossRef Austin, P.C.: Using the standardized difference to compare the prevalence of a binary variable between two groups in observational research. Commun. Stat.-Simul. Comput. 38, 1228–1234 (2009b)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C.: Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. 28, 3083–3107 (2009c)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Austin, P.C.: Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. 28, 3083–3107 (2009c)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C.: The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute reductions) in observational studies. Stat. Med. 29, 2137–2148 (2010)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Austin, P.C.: The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute reductions) in observational studies. Stat. Med. 29, 2137–2148 (2010)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C.: An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 46, 399–424 (2011)CrossRef Austin, P.C.: An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 46, 399–424 (2011)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C., Mamdani, M.M., Stukel, T.A., Anderson, G.M., Tu, J.V.: The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat. Med. 24, 1563–1578 (2005)CrossRefPubMed Austin, P.C., Mamdani, M.M., Stukel, T.A., Anderson, G.M., Tu, J.V.: The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat. Med. 24, 1563–1578 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C., Mamdani, M.M.: A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat. Med. 25, 2084–2106 (2006)CrossRefPubMed Austin, P.C., Mamdani, M.M.: A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat. Med. 25, 2084–2106 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Austin, P.C., Stuart, E.A.: Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat. Med. 34, 3661–3679 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Austin, P.C., Stuart, E.A.: Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat. Med. 34, 3661–3679 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zurück zum Zitat Brookhard, M.A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K.J., Glynn, R.J., Avorn, J., Sturmer, T.: Variable selection for propensity score models. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163, 1149–1156 (2006)CrossRef Brookhard, M.A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K.J., Glynn, R.J., Avorn, J., Sturmer, T.: Variable selection for propensity score models. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163, 1149–1156 (2006)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Diamond, A., Sekhon, J.S.: Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95, 932–945 (2013)CrossRef Diamond, A., Sekhon, J.S.: Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95, 932–945 (2013)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Flurry, B.K., Riedwyl, H.: Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. Am. Stat. 40, 249–251 (1986) Flurry, B.K., Riedwyl, H.: Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. Am. Stat. 40, 249–251 (1986)
Zurück zum Zitat Hainmueller, J.: Entropy balancing for causal effects: a multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Polit. Anal. 20, 25–46 (2012)CrossRef Hainmueller, J.: Entropy balancing for causal effects: a multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Polit. Anal. 20, 25–46 (2012)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hainmueller, J., Xu, Y.: Ebalance: a Stata package for entropy balancing. J. Stat. Softw. 54, 1–18 (2013)CrossRef Hainmueller, J., Xu, Y.: Ebalance: a Stata package for entropy balancing. J. Stat. Softw. 54, 1–18 (2013)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hill, J.L.: Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J. Comput. Gr. Stat. 20, 217–240 (2011)CrossRef Hill, J.L.: Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J. Comput. Gr. Stat. 20, 217–240 (2011)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ho, D.E., Imai, K., King, G., Stuart, E.A.: Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal. 15, 199–236 (2007)CrossRef Ho, D.E., Imai, K., King, G., Stuart, E.A.: Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal. 15, 199–236 (2007)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Imai, K., Ratkovic, M.: Covariate balancing propensity score. J. R. Stat. Soc. 76, 243–263 (2014)CrossRef Imai, K., Ratkovic, M.: Covariate balancing propensity score. J. R. Stat. Soc. 76, 243–263 (2014)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Imbens, G.W.: Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev. Econ. Stat. 86, 4–29 (2004)CrossRef Imbens, G.W.: Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev. Econ. Stat. 86, 4–29 (2004)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat McCaffrey, D.F., Ridgeway, G., Morral, A.R.: Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluation causal effects in observational studies. Psychol. Methods 9, 403–425 (2004)CrossRefPubMed McCaffrey, D.F., Ridgeway, G., Morral, A.R.: Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluation causal effects in observational studies. Psychol. Methods 9, 403–425 (2004)CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Robins, J., Ritov, Y.: Towards a curse of dimensionality appropriate (CODA) asymptotic theory for semi-parametric models. Stat. Med. 16, 285–319 (1997)CrossRefPubMed Robins, J., Ritov, Y.: Towards a curse of dimensionality appropriate (CODA) asymptotic theory for semi-parametric models. Stat. Med. 16, 285–319 (1997)CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55 (1983)CrossRef Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55 (1983)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 516–524 (1984)CrossRef Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 516–524 (1984)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rubin, D.B.: Estimating the causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66, 688–701 (1974)CrossRef Rubin, D.B.: Estimating the causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66, 688–701 (1974)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rubin, D.B.: Assignment to a treatment group on the basis of a covariate. J. Educ. Stat. 2, 1–26 (1977)CrossRef Rubin, D.B.: Assignment to a treatment group on the basis of a covariate. J. Educ. Stat. 2, 1–26 (1977)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rubin, D.B.: Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Method. 2, 169–188 (2001)CrossRef Rubin, D.B.: Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Method. 2, 169–188 (2001)CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sturmer, T., Rothman, K., Avorn, J., Glynn, R.: Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution–A simulation study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 172, 843–854 (2010)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sturmer, T., Rothman, K., Avorn, J., Glynn, R.: Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution–A simulation study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 172, 843–854 (2010)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zurück zum Zitat StataCorp.: Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP (2015) StataCorp.: Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP (2015)
Zurück zum Zitat Zhao, Q., Percival, D.: Entropy balancing is doubly robust. J Causal Inference 5, 1–23 (2016)CrossRef Zhao, Q., Percival, D.: Entropy balancing is doubly robust. J Causal Inference 5, 1–23 (2016)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Using entropy balancing to strengthen an observational cohort study design: lessons learned from an evaluation of a complex multi-state federal demonstration
verfasst von
William J. Parish
Vincent Keyes
Christopher Beadles
Amy Kandilov
Publikationsdatum
29.11.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1387-3741
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9400
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-017-0174-z