Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), 33 Ursula Franklin Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada.
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Aug 31;22(1):235. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01716-4.
A classic methodology used in evaluating the impact of health policy interventions is interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis, applying a quasi-experimental design that uses both pre- and post-policy data without randomization. In this paper, we took a simulation-based approach to estimating intervention effects under different assumptions.
Each of the simulated mortality rates contained a linear time trend, seasonality, autoregressive, and moving-average terms. The simulations of the policy effects involved three scenarios: 1) immediate-level change only, 2) immediate-level and slope change, and 3) lagged-level and slope change. The estimated effects and biases of these effects were examined via three matched generalized additive mixed models, each of which used two different approaches: 1) effects based on estimated coefficients (estimated approach), and 2) effects based on predictions from models (predicted approach). The robustness of these two approaches was further investigated assuming misspecification of the models.
When one simulated dataset was analyzed with the matched model, the two analytical approaches produced similar estimates. However, when the models were misspecified, the number of deaths prevented, estimated using the predicted vs. estimated approaches, were very different, with the predicted approach yielding estimates closer to the real effect. The discrepancy was larger when the policy was applied early in the time-series.
Even when the sample size appears to be large enough, one should still be cautious when conducting ITS analyses, since the power also depends on when in the series the intervention occurs. In addition, the intervention lagged effect needs to be fully considered at the study design stage (i.e., when developing the models).
评估卫生政策干预措施影响的经典方法是中断时间序列(ITS)分析,采用准实验设计,在没有随机化的情况下同时使用政策前后的数据。在本文中,我们采用基于模拟的方法在不同假设下估计干预效果。
每个模拟死亡率都包含线性时间趋势、季节性、自回归和移动平均项。政策效果的模拟涉及三种情况:1)仅立即水平变化,2)立即水平和斜率变化,3)滞后水平和斜率变化。通过三个匹配的广义加性混合模型来检查这些效果的估计效果和偏差,每个模型都使用两种不同的方法:1)基于估计系数的效果(估计方法),2)基于模型预测的效果(预测方法)。进一步假设模型的指定有误,研究了这两种方法的稳健性。
当使用匹配模型分析一个模拟数据集时,两种分析方法产生了相似的估计值。但是,当模型指定有误时,使用预测与估计方法预测的预防死亡人数的数量差异很大,预测方法的估计值更接近实际效果。当政策在时间序列早期应用时,差异更大。
即使样本量看起来足够大,在进行 ITS 分析时仍应谨慎,因为效力还取决于干预发生在时间序列的哪个阶段。此外,在研究设计阶段(即制定模型时)需要充分考虑干预的滞后效果。