Article

Using Non-experimental Data to Estimate Treatment Effects.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
Psychiatric Annals (Impact Factor: 0.71). 07/2009; 39(7):41451. DOI: 10.3928/00485713-20090625-07
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While much psychiatric research is based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), where patients are randomly assigned to treatments, sometimes RCTs are not feasible. This paper describes propensity score approaches, which are increasingly used for estimating treatment effects in non-experimental settings. The primary goal of propensity score methods is to create sets of treated and comparison subjects who look as similar as possible, in essence replicating a randomized experiment, at least with respect to observed patient characteristics. A study to estimate the metabolic effects of antipsychotic medication in a sample of Florida Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia illustrates methods.

1 Follower
 · 
96 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Estimating the causal effect of an active ingredient in a randomized treatment may be complicated when participants receive heterogeneous doses of the active ingredient. For example, homeless veterans with mental illness were randomized to receive either case management only, or case management plus special access to a Section 8 housing voucher. However, a quarter of those randomized to the housing voucher group did not actually use the voucher, while a few of those randomized to case management actually used a housing voucher. Our goal is to estimate the causal effect of the proposed active ingredient (i.e., using a housing voucher), as opposed to the effect of being randomized to the active ingredient. The proposed instrumental variable methodology assumes that the outcome is proportional to the dose of the active ingredient and tests the significance of the instrumental variable estimate using a permutation test such as the Hodges–Lehman aligned rank statistic proposed by Rosenbaum for pair-matched data (Rosenbaum, Observational studies, 2002; The design of observational studies, 2010). This method removes unmeasured confounding when the assumptions of monotonicity and the exclusion restrictions hold; however, in practice these assumptions may not hold perfectly. Consequently, we extend and strengthen this approach by incorporating optimal full matching on the propensity to use the active ingredient, to further reduce bias and variability in the IV estimation.
    Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 12/2012; 12(4). DOI:10.1007/s10742-012-0100-3
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychotropic drugs are a crucial element of treatment for psychiatric disorders; however there is an established association between many classes of psychotropic medications and fracture risk among older adults, and growing evidence that some classes of medications may also impact bone mineral density (BMD). In this paper we review recent epidemiologic research on the association between psychotropic medications and osteoporosis, and discuss current controversies and unresolved issues surrounding this relationship. Key areas in need of focused inquiry include resolving whether the apparent association between psychotropic medications and BMD is due to confounding by indication, whether this relationship differs for men and women, and whether the implications of these medications for bone health vary over the life course. Clinical research to delineate the risk/benefit ratio of psychotropic medications for older adults, particularly those who are at high risk for fracture, is also needed to facilitate prescribing decisions between patients and physicians.
    Current Osteoporosis Reports 09/2012; 10(4). DOI:10.1007/s11914-012-0121-4
  • Source
    Psychiatric Annals 01/2009; 38(12):805-811. DOI:10.3928/00485713-20081201-05 · 0.71 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from