Dataset Information

Associations between young informal caring and mental health: a prospective observational study using augmented inverse probability weighting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Across the world, many young people are supplying unpaid, informal care. There is growing evidence of the impact of this caring role on the lives of young informal carers, however there has been little quantitative analysis of the mental health impacts. This research aimed to estimate the effect of informal caring at age 14/15 years on mental health at age 18/19 years.

Method

Data was drawn from Waves 5, 6, 8 (2012-2018) of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Effects of caring on mental health were assessed using augmented inverse probability weighting, with adjustment for potential confounders, and using the Kessler-10 measure of mental health. Caring was assessed with both a binary (any caring vs none), and a three category variable (no caring, less than daily caring, daily caring). Multiple imputation was carried out using chained equations, and analysis was conducted on both complete case (n=2165) and the imputed dataset (n=3341).

Outcomes

In complete case models, any caring at age 14/15 years was associated with poorer mental health at age 18/19 years compared to those reporting no caring, with an average treatment effect (ATE) of 1.10 (95%CI 0.37, 1.83). The ATE of daily caring compared to no caring at age 14/15 years of age was 1.94 (95%CI 0.48, 3.39), and caring less than daily (compared to no caring) was associated with a treatment effect of 0.83(95%CI 0.06, 1.61). Associations were robust to several sensitivity analyses.

Interpretation

These results suggest there is a mental health impact of caring in adolescence on mental health four years later. This highlights the need for support for young informal carers, particularly for those providing more intensive caring.

Funding

This study was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Award (TK, DE200100607).

SUBMITTER: King T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8382993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionDoes inverse probability weighting (IPW) provide a more valid estimate of the cumulative incidence of live birth after multiple cycles of IVF?Summary answerIPW can provide a more accurate estimate of treatment success for counseling and decision-making regarding IVF.What is known alreadyDifferent approaches have been used to define and calculate IVF success; however, many of these approaches have limitations and potentially violate statistical assumptions. IPW can address potential selection bias that arises when people do not continue IVF treatment after a failed cycle.Study design, size, durationData were derived from a cohort study of women undergoing their first fresh embryo transfer IVF cycle at our institution between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2014. All autologous cycles (fresh and frozen) were included, up to six total cycles.Participants/materials, setting, methodsWe identified 20 015 women who underwent 47 079 IVF cycles and had 10 031 live births during the study period. The cumulative incidence of live birth was calculated using three approaches. First, we used a standard Kaplan-Meier approach, 'the optimistic approach', censoring women when they dropped out of treatment. Second, we used a 'conservative' Kaplan-Meier approach that assumed women who dropped out of treatment did not achieve a live birth. Finally, we used IPW to calculate the probability of remaining in treatment, while accounting for differences in treatment drop out. IPW up-weights the data of those remaining under observation who resembled the women who dropped out of treatment, thereby decreasing the potential selection bias resulting from loss to follow-up. The IPW was incorporated into a Kaplan-Meier approach.Main results and the role of chanceThe cumulative incidence of live birth was 72.1% (95% CI: 71.0-73.1%) for the optimistic approach, 50.1% (49.4-50.8%) for the conservative approach and 66.8% (65.5-68.1%) for the IPW approach. Among women < 38 years of age, the cumulative incidence of live birth calculated by the IPW was slightly higher than that calculated by the optimistic approach. For women 41-42 years of age, the IPW cumulative incidence of live birth was slightly lower. The IPW was similar to the optimistic approach for the other age groups. The conservative estimate was lowest for all age groups.Limitations, reasons for cautionOnly clinical data recorded by the providers during an IVF cycle were used to generate weights for IPW. Covariates included: age, gravidity and year at the start of the cycle; primary infertility diagnosis; procedure type (i.e. whether a fresh or frozen embryo was transferred); number of mature oocytes retrieved; number of embryos transferred; cycle cancellation; pregnancy loss in the cycle; and insurance status. We were unable to determine exact reasons for treatment drop out (e.g. cessation of IVF treatment, transfer to another institution or spontaneous pregnancy). Our IPW model was moderately predictive based on the c-statistic from the calculation of the denominator of the weight; however, residual selection bias may remain due to the limited range of covariate data.Wider implications of the findingsIPW can be used in a variety of settings to address selection bias introduced by differential loss to follow up or treatment drop out.Study funding/competing interest(s)AMM was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) T32 HD052458-Boston University Reproductive, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Training Program. The authors report no conflicts of interest.Trial registration numberN/A.

Project description:Commonly used semiparametric estimators of causal effects specify parametric models for the propensity score (PS) and the conditional outcome. An example is an augmented inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimator, frequently referred to as a doubly robust estimator, because it is consistent if at least one of the two models is correctly specified. However, in many observational studies, the role of the parametric models is often not to provide a representation of the data-generating process but rather to facilitate the adjustment for confounding, making the assumption of at least one true model unlikely to hold. In this paper, we propose a crude analytical approach to study the large-sample bias of estimators when the models are assumed to be approximations of the data-generating process, namely, when all models are misspecified. We apply our approach to three prototypical estimators of the average causal effect, two IPW estimators, using a misspecified PS model, and an augmented IPW (AIPW) estimator, using misspecified models for the outcome regression (OR) and the PS. For the two IPW estimators, we show that normalization, in addition to having a smaller variance, also offers some protection against bias due to model misspecification. To analyze the question of when the use of two misspecified models is better than one we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for when the AIPW estimator has a smaller bias than a simple IPW estimator and when it has a smaller bias than an IPW estimator with normalized weights. If the misspecification of the outcome model is moderate, the comparisons of the biases of the IPW and AIPW estimators show that the AIPW estimator has a smaller bias than the IPW estimators. However, all biases include a scaling with the PS-model error and we suggest caution in modeling the PS whenever such a model is involved. For numerical and finite sample illustrations, we include three simulation studies and corresponding approximations of the large-sample biases. In a dataset from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, we estimate the effect of smoking on blood lead levels.