霍乱时间上的双重差分法：给流行病学家的简要介绍
Difference-in-Difference in the Time of Cholera: a Gentle Introduction for Epidemiologists.
作者信息
Caniglia Ellen C, Murray Eleanor J
机构信息
Department of Population Health, New York University Langone Medical Center.
Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health.
出版信息
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2020 Dec;7(4):203-211. doi: 10.1007/s40471-020-00245-2. Epub 2020 Sep 23.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The goal of this article is to provide an introduction to the intuition behind the difference-in-difference method for epidemiologists. We focus on the theoretical aspects of this tool, including the types of questions for which difference-in-difference is appropriate, and what assumptions must hold for the results to be causally interpretable.
RECENT FINDINGS
While currently under-utilized in epidemiologic research, the difference-in-difference method is a useful tool to examine effects of population-level exposures, but relies on strong assumptions.
SUMMARY
We use the famous example of John Snow's investigation of the cause of cholera mortality in London to illustrate the difference-in-difference approach and corresponding assumptions. We conclude by arguing that this method deserves a second-look from epidemiologists interested in asking causal questions about the impact of a population-level exposure change on a population-level outcome for the group that experienced the change.
摘要
综述目的
本文旨在向流行病学家介绍差分法背后的直观原理。我们聚焦于该工具的理论层面，包括适用于差分法的问题类型，以及要使结果具有因果解释力必须满足哪些假设。
最新发现
虽然差分法目前在流行病学研究中的应用尚不充分，但它是检验人群水平暴露效应的有用工具，不过依赖于强有力的假设。
总结
我们用约翰·斯诺对伦敦霍乱死亡率原因的著名调查案例来说明差分法及其相应假设。我们得出结论，对于那些有兴趣就人群水平暴露变化对经历该变化的群体的人群水平结果的影响提出因果问题的流行病学家而言，这种方法值得重新审视。
相似文献
1
Difference-in-Difference in the Time of Cholera: a Gentle Introduction for Epidemiologists.霍乱时间上的双重差分法：给流行病学家的简要介绍
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2020 Dec;7(4):203-211. doi: 10.1007/s40471-020-00245-2. Epub 2020 Sep 23.
2
Re-evaluating John Snow's 1856 south London study.重新评估约翰·斯诺 1856 年在伦敦南部的研究。
Soc Sci Med. 2024 Mar;344:116612. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116612. Epub 2024 Jan 30.
3
A new perspective on John Snow's communicable disease theory.关于约翰·斯诺传染病理论的新视角。
Am J Epidemiol. 1995 Nov 1;142(9 Suppl):S3-9. doi: 10.1093/aje/142.supplement_9.s3.
4
The mortality rates and the space-time patterns of John Snow's cholera epidemic map.约翰·斯诺霍乱流行地图的死亡率及时空模式。
Int J Health Geogr. 2015 Jun 17;14:21. doi: 10.1186/s12942-015-0011-y.
5
Crediting his critics' concerns: remaking John Snow's map of Broad Street cholera, 1854.认可其批评者的担忧：重绘1854年约翰·斯诺的宽街霍乱地图。
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Oct;69(8):1246-51. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.046. Epub 2009 Aug 27.
6
Rethinking John Snow's South London study: a Bayesian evaluation and recalculation.重新审视约翰·斯诺的伦敦南部研究：贝叶斯评估与重新计算
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Jul;63(1):271-83. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.12.006. Epub 2006 Feb 7.
7
Principles of reasoning in historical epidemiology.历史流行病学推理原则。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Oct;18(5):968-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01902.x.
8
A rivalry of foulness: official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854.一场恶劣行为的较量：1854年伦敦霍乱疫情的官方与非官方调查
Am J Public Health. 1998 Oct;88(10):1545-53. doi: 10.2105/ajph.88.10.1545.
9
Our sense of Snow: the myth of John Snow in medical geography.我们对斯诺的认知：医学地理学中约翰·斯诺的神话。
Soc Sci Med. 2000 Apr;50(7-8):923-35. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00345-7.
10
A case study in explanatory power: John Snow's conclusions about the pathology and transmission of cholera.解释力的一个案例研究：约翰·斯诺关于霍乱病理学和传播途径的结论。
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2011 Sep;42(3):306-16. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.02.001. Epub 2011 May 6.
引用本文的文献
1
Considerations for the epidemiological evaluation of hyperlocal interventions: A case study of the New York City overdose prevention centers.超本地化干预措施的流行病学评估考量：以纽约市过量用药预防中心为例
Soc Sci Med. 2025 Aug;378:118156. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118156. Epub 2025 May 3.
2
The effectiveness of new urban trail infrastructure on physical activity and active transportation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of natural experiments.新型城市步道基础设施对身体活动和主动运输的有效性：自然实验的系统评价和荟萃分析
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2025 Mar 27;22(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12966-025-01729-4.
3
Impact of incident rheumatoid arthritis on earnings: a nationwide sibling comparison study.类风湿关节炎发病对收入的影响：一项全国性的兄弟姐妹对照研究。
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2025 Jun 1;64(6):3879-3883. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae535.
4
Effectiveness of the Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings (ARCHES) intervention among abortion clients in Bangladesh: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.孟加拉国堕胎服务对象中“在卫生环境中应对生殖胁迫”（ARCHES）干预措施的效果：一项整群随机对照试验
EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Jun 28;73:102699. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102699. eCollection 2024 Jul.
5
Hospital services utilisation and cost before and after COVID-19 hospital treatment: Evidence from Indonesia.新冠肺炎治疗前后医院服务利用和费用：来自印度尼西亚的证据。
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 5;19(7):e0305835. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305835. eCollection 2024.
6
Evaluating Effects of Multilevel Interventions on Disparity in Health and Healthcare Decisions.评估多层次干预对健康和医疗保健决策差异的影响。
Prev Sci. 2024 Jul;25(Suppl 3):407-420. doi: 10.1007/s11121-024-01677-8. Epub 2024 Jun 22.
7
Single proxy control.单一代理控制。
Biometrics. 2024 Mar 27;80(2). doi: 10.1093/biomtc/ujae027.
8
Quasi-experimental methods for pharmacoepidemiology: difference-in-differences and synthetic control methods with case studies for vaccine evaluation.药物流行病学中的准实验方法：疫苗评估的病例研究中的差异中的差异和综合控制方法。
Am J Epidemiol. 2024 Jul 8;193(7):1050-1058. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwae019.
9
Medicaid Expansion and Racial-Ethnic and Sex Disparities in Cardiovascular Diseases Over 6 Years: A Generalized Synthetic Control Approach. Medicaid 扩张与心血管疾病 6 年以上的种族、民族和性别差异：广义综合控制方法。
Epidemiology. 2024 Mar 1;35(2):263-272. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001691. Epub 2023 Jan 30.
10
Universal Difference-in-Differences for Causal Inference in Epidemiology.通用差分法在流行病学因果推断中的应用
Epidemiology. 2024 Jan 1;35(1):16-22. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001676. Epub 2023 Nov 27.
本文引用的文献
1
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Opioid Overdoses: Exploring Sources of Heterogeneity.处方药物监测项目与阿片类药物滥用：探索异质性来源。
Epidemiology. 2019 Mar;30(2):212-220. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000950.
2
Estimating the Short-Term Effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit on Child Health.估算劳动所得税收抵免对儿童健康的短期影响。
Am J Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 1;187(12):2633-2641. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy179.
3
Designing Difference in Difference Studies: Best Practices for Public Health Policy Research.设计双重差分研究：公共卫生政策研究的最佳实践。
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:453-469. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013507. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
4
Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association Between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts.州同性婚姻政策与青少年自杀未遂之间关联的双重差分分析
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Apr 1;171(4):350-356. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529.
5
Association of State Recreational Marijuana Laws With Adolescent Marijuana Use.州立休闲大麻法律与青少年大麻使用之间的关联。
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Feb 1;171(2):142-149. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3624.
6
Does water kill? A call for less casual causal inferences.水会致命吗？呼吁减少随意的因果推断。
Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Oct;26(10):674-680. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.08.016. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
7
What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?我们对枪支立法与枪支相关伤害之间的关联了解多少？
Epidemiol Rev. 2016;38(1):140-57. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxv012. Epub 2016 Feb 10.
8
Invited commentary: positivity in practice.特邀评论：实践中的积极性。
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Mar 15;171(6):674-7; discussion 678-81. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp436. Epub 2010 Feb 5.
9
Revisiting Robinson: the perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy.再访罗宾逊：个人主义与生态谬误的风险。
Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;38(2):342-60; author reply 370-3. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn359. Epub 2009 Jan 28.
10
Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences.用于风险或患病率比值及差异的简易SAS计算。
Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Aug 1;162(3):199-200. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi188. Epub 2005 Jun 29.
Zotero 插件