Green Kerry M, Stuart Elizabeth A
Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health.
Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Oct;82(5):773-83. doi: 10.1037/a0036515. Epub 2014 Apr 14.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本研究为倾向得分法如何与调节分析(即效应修正)相结合以检验非实验性研究中潜在因果效应的亚组差异提供指导。作为一个有启发性的例子,我们关注抑郁症对男性和女性后续物质使用的影响可能有何不同。
利用一项针对城市非裔美国人的纵向社区队列研究(N = 952)的数据,该研究在童年、青少年、青年和中年进行了评估,我们估计青年期抑郁症对中年期物质使用结果的影响,以及这种影响是否因性别而异。我们展示并比较了5种使用倾向得分法估计亚组效应的不同技术,包括为男性和女性分别建立倾向得分模型和进行匹配、为男性和女性建立联合倾向得分模型并按性别分别和一起进行匹配,以及一个包含理论上重要的性别交互作用且按性别分别和一起进行匹配的联合男性/女性倾向得分模型。
分析表明,为男性和女性分别估计模型能产生最佳平衡,因此,至少在这些数据中,当对亚组分析感兴趣时,这是一种首选技术。结果还显示了抑郁症对物质使用的影响,但没有显著的性别差异。
在估计倾向得分之前预先指定亚组效应并检查亚组内的平衡性至关重要,无论使用何种类型的倾向得分模型。结果还表明,抑郁症可能对中年男性和女性的多种物质使用结果产生相对同等的影响。