Introducing the At-Risk Average Causal Effect with Application to HealthWise South Africa

The Methodology Center, The Pennsylvania State University, 204 E. Calder Way, Ste. 400, State College, PA 16801, USA.
Prevention Science (Impact Factor: 3.15). 04/2012; 13(4):437-47. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-011-0271-0
Source: PubMed


Researchers often hypothesize that a causal variable, whether randomly assigned or not, has an effect on an outcome behavior and that this effect may vary across levels of initial risk of engaging in the outcome behavior. In this paper, we propose a method for quantifying initial risk status. We then illustrate the use of this risk-status variable as a moderator of the causal effect of leisure boredom, a non-randomized continuous variable, on cigarette smoking initiation. The data come from the HealthWise South Africa study. We define the causal effects using marginal structural models and estimate the causal effects using inverse propensity weights. Indeed, we found leisure boredom had a differential causal effect on smoking initiation across different risk statuses. The proposed method may be useful for prevention scientists evaluating causal effects that may vary across levels of initial risk.

Download full-text


Available from: Linda L Caldwell, Sep 03, 2014
  • Source
    • "The issue of selection bias emerges with regard to the relation between changes in the mediator and changes in the outcome. As noted above, the mediator cannot be treated as though it has a causal influence on outcome, because the covariates that were balanced across treatments due to randomization could still bias the relation between the mediator and outcome (Coffman & Zhong, 2012). The bias evident in the link between mediators and outcomes is demonstrated in the following example: if changes in PTSD served as a mediator of treatment effects on SUDs in a conventional mediation analysis, inferences regarding the link between PTSD and SUDs could not be made as though clients had been randomized to different levels of change over time in PTSD (which, of course, can neither practically nor ethically be done). "

    Full-text · Dataset · Jun 2015
  • Source
    • "These weights work to create an " artificial RCT " where one could estimate causal effects as though both the treatment and the mediator were randomized. The weights for mediation would be calculated in a manner similar to the weights described in Section 3.2.2 for causal moderator effects (Coffman & Zhong, 2012). 3.2.4. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent federal legislation and a renewed focus on integrative care models underscore the need for economical, effective, and science-based behavioral health care treatment. As such, maximizing the impact and reach of treatment research is of great concern. Behavioral health issues, including the frequent co-occurrence of substance use disorders (SUD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), are often complex, with a myriad of factors contributing to the success of interventions. Although treatment guides for comorbid SUD/PTSD exist, most patients continue to suffer symptoms following the prescribed treatment course. Further, the study of efficacious treatments has been hampered by methodological challenges (e.g., overreliance on "superiority" designs (i.e., designs structured to test whether or not one treatment statistically surpasses another in terms of effect sizes) and short term interventions). Secondary analyses of randomized controlled clinical trials offer potential benefits to enhance understanding of findings and increase the personalization of treatment. This paper offers a description of the limits of randomized controlled trials as related to SUD/PTSD populations, highlights the benefits and potential pitfalls of secondary analytic techniques, and uses a case example of one of the largest effectiveness trials of behavioral treatment for co-occurring SUD/PTSD conducted within the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CTN) and producing 19 publications. The paper concludes with implications of this secondary analytic approach to improve addiction researchers' ability to identify best practices for community-based treatment of these disorders. Innovative methods are needed to maximize the benefits of clinical studies and better support SUD/PTSD treatment options for both specialty and non-specialty healthcare settings. Moving forward, planning for and description of secondary analyses in randomized trials should be given equal consideration and care to the primary outcome analysis. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2015 · Journal of substance abuse treatment
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessing mediation is important because most interventions are designed to affect an intermediate variable or mediator; this mediator, in turn, is hypothesized to affect outcome behaviors. Although there may be randomization to the intervention, randomization to levels of the mediator is not generally possible. Therefore, drawing causal inferences about the effect of the mediator on the outcome is not straightforward. The aim of this study was to introduce an approach to causal mediation analysis using the potential outcomes framework for causal inference and then discuss this approach in terms of the scientific questions addressed and the assumptions needed for identifying and estimating the effects. The approach is illustrated using data from the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies: Reducing Risky Relationships-HIV intervention implemented with 243 incarcerated women re-entering the community. The intervention was designed to affect various mediators at 30 days postintervention, including risky relationship thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes, which were then hypothesized to affect engagement in risky sexual behaviors, such as unprotected sex, at 90 days postintervention. Using propensity score weighting, we found the intervention resulted in a significant decrease in risky relationship thoughts (-0.529, p = .03) and risky relationship thoughts resulted in an increase in unprotected sex (0.447, p < .001). However, the direct effect of the intervention on unprotected sex was not significant (0.388, p = .479). By reducing bias, propensity score models improve the accuracy of statistical analysis of interventions with mediators and allow researchers to determine not only whether their intervention works but also how it works.
    Full-text · Article · May 2012 · Nursing research
Show more