Dataset Information

Comparison group selection in the presence of rolling entry for health services research: Rolling entry matching.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To demonstrate rolling entry matching (REM), a new statistical method, for comparison group selection in the context of staggered nonuniform participant entry in nonrandomized interventions.

Study setting

Four Health Care Innovation Award (HCIA) interventions between 2012 and 2016.

Study design

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation HCIA participants entering these interventions over time were matched with nonparticipants who exhibited a similar pattern of health care use and expenditures during each participant's baseline period.

Data extraction methods

Medicare fee-for-service claims data were used to identify nonparticipating, fee-for-service beneficiaries as a potential comparison group and conduct REM.

Principal findings

Rolling entry matching achieved conventionally-accepted levels of balance on observed characteristics between participants and nonparticipants. The method overcame difficulties associated with a small number of intervention entrants.

Conclusions

In nonrandomized interventions, valid inference regarding intervention effects relies on the suitability of the comparison group to act as the counterfactual case for the intervention group. When participants enter over time, comparison group selection is complicated. Rolling entry matching is a possible solution for comparison group selection in rolling entry interventions that is particularly useful with small sample sizes and merits further investigation in a variety of contexts.

SUBMITTER: Witman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6407360 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison group selection in the presence of rolling entry for health services research: Rolling entry matching.

Witman Allison A Beadles Christopher C Liu Yiyan Y Larsen Ann A Kafali Nilay N Gandhi Sabina S Amico Peter P Hoerger Thomas T

Health services research 20181109 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To demonstrate rolling entry matching (REM), a new statistical method, for comparison group selection in the context of staggered nonuniform participant entry in nonrandomized interventions.<h4>Study setting</h4>Four Health Care Innovation Award (HCIA) interventions between 2012 and 2016.<h4>Study design</h4>Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation HCIA participants entering these interventions over time were matched with nonparticipants who exhibited a similar pattern of he ...[more]

PMID: 30411349

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardinality matching (CM), a novel matching technique, finds the largest matched sample meeting prespecified balance criteria thereby overcoming limitations of propensity score matching (PSM) associated with limited covariate overlap, which are especially pronounced in studies with small sample sizes. The current study proposes a framework for large-scale CM (LS-CM); and compares large-scale PSM (LS-PSM) and LS-CM in terms of post-match sample size, covariate balance and residual confounding at progressively smaller sample sizes.MethodsEvaluation of LS-PSM and LS-CM within a comparative cohort study of new users of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic monotherapy identified from a U.S. insurance claims database. Candidate covariates included patient demographics, and all observed prior conditions, drug exposures and procedures. Propensity scores were calculated using LASSO regression, and candidate covariates with non-zero beta coefficients in the propensity model were defined as matching covariates for use in LS-CM. One-to-one matching was performed using progressively tighter parameter settings. Covariate balance was assessed using standardized mean differences. Hazard ratios for negative control outcomes perceived as unassociated with treatment (i.e., true hazard ratio of 1) were estimated using unconditional Cox models. Residual confounding was assessed using the expected systematic error of the empirical null distribution of negative control effect estimates compared to the ground truth. To simulate diverse research conditions, analyses were repeated within 10 %, 1 and 0.5 % subsample groups with increasingly limited covariate overlap.ResultsA total of 172,117 patients (ACEI: 129,078; thiazide: 43,039) met the study criteria. As compared to LS-PSM, LS-CM was associated with increased sample retention. Although LS-PSM achieved balance across all matching covariates within the full study population, substantial matching covariate imbalance was observed within the 1 and 0.5 % subsample groups. Meanwhile, LS-CM achieved matching covariate balance across all analyses. LS-PSM was associated with better candidate covariate balance within the full study population. Otherwise, both matching techniques achieved comparable candidate covariate balance and expected systematic error.ConclusionsLS-CM found the largest matched sample meeting prespecified balance criteria while achieving comparable candidate covariate balance and residual confounding. We recommend LS-CM as an alternative to LS-PSM in studies with small sample sizes or limited covariate overlap.

Project description:PurposeThis study is a scoping review of the different methods used to measure rurality in the health services research (HSR) literature.MethodsWe identified peer-reviewed empirical studies from 2010-2020 from seven leading HSR journals, including the Journal of Rural Health, that used any definition to measure rurality as a part of their analysis. From each study, we identified the geographic unit (e.g., county, zip code) and definition (e.g., Rural Urban Continuum Codes, Rural Urban Commuting Areas) used to classify categories of rurality. We analyzed whether geographic units and definitions used to classify rurality differed by focus area of studies, including costs, quality, and access to care. Lastly, we examined the number of rural categories used by authors to assess rural areas.FindingsIn 103 included studies, five different geographic units and 11 definitions were used to measure rurality. The most common geographic units used to measure rurality were county (n = 59, 57%), which was used most frequently in studies examining cost (n = 12, 75%) and access (n = 33, 57.9%). Rural Urban Commuting Area codes were the most common definition used to measure rurality for studies examining access (n = 13, 22.8%) and quality (n = 10, 44%). The majority of included studies made rural versus urban comparisons (n = 82, 80%) as opposed to focusing on rural populations only (n = 21, 20%). Among studies that compared rural and urban populations, most studies used only one category to identify rural locations (n = 49 of 82 studies, 60%).ConclusionGeographic units and definitions to determine rurality were used inconsistently within and across studies with an HSR focus. This finding may affect how health disparities by rural location are determined and thus how resources and federal funds are allocated. Future research should focus on developing a standardized system to determine under what circumstances researchers should use different geographic units and methods to determine rurality by HSR focus area.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the contextual factors influencing research and research capacity building in rural health settings.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews to collect data regarding health professionals' research education and capacity building. Analysis involved inductive coding using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis; and deductive mapping to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).SettingVictorian rural health services and university campuses.ParticipantsTwenty senior rural health managers, academics and/or research coordinators. Participants had at least three years' experience in rural public health, health-related research or health education settings.Main outcome measuresContextual factors influencing the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services.ResultsFindings reflected the CFIR domains and constructs: intervention characteristics (relative advantage); outer setting (cosmopolitanism, external policies and incentives); inner setting (implementation climate, readiness for implementation); characteristics of individuals (self-efficacy); and process (planning, engaging). Findings illustrated the implementation context and the complex contextual tensions, which either prevent or enhance research capacity building in rural health services.ConclusionsRealising the Australian Government's vision for improved health service provision and health outcomes in rural areas requires a strong culture of research and research capacity building in rural health services. Low levels of rural research funding, chronic workforce shortages and the tension between undertaking research and delivering health care, all significantly impact the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services. Effective policy and investment addressing these contextual factors is crucial for the success of research capacity building in rural health services.

Dataset Information

Comparison group selection in the presence of rolling entry for health services research: Rolling entry matching.

Objective

Study setting

Study design

Data extraction methods

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison group selection in the presence of rolling entry for health services research: Rolling entry matching.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets