Inverse intensity weighting in generalized linear models as an option for analyzing longitudinal data with triggered observations.

Longitudinal epidemiologic studies with irregularly observed categorical outcomes present considerable analytical challenges. Generalized linear models (GLMs) tolerate without bias only values missing completely at random and assume that all observations contribute equally. A triggered sampling study design and an analysis using inverse intensity weights in a GLM offer promise of effectively addressing both shortcomings. A triggered sampling design generates irregularly spaced outcomes because, in addition to regularly scheduled follow-up interviews, it specifies that data be collected after a "trigger" (a decline in health status during follow-up) occurs. It is intended to mitigate bias introduced by study participant loss to follow-up. For each observation, an inverse intensity weight is calculated from an Anderson-Gill recurrent-event regression model whose events of interest are observed interviews; the weights help to equalize observation contributions. Investigators in the Longitudinal Examination of Attitudes and Preferences (LEAP) Study (1999-2002), a Connecticut study of seriously ill older adults at the end of life, used a triggered sampling design. In this paper, the authors analyze data from the LEAP Study to illustrate the methods and benefits of inverse intensity weighting in GLMs. An additional benefit of the analytical approach presented is that it allows for assessment of the utility of triggered sampling in longitudinal studies.

[1]  J. Robins,et al.  Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data , 1995 .

[2]  P. V. Van Ness,et al.  Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[3]  J. Dubin,et al.  Triggered sampling could help improve longitudinal studies of persons with elevated mortality risk. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  M. Lawton,et al.  Assessment of Older People: Self-Maintaining and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living , 1969 .

[5]  M. Lieberman,et al.  The stress process. , 1981, Journal of health and social behavior.

[6]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.

[7]  W. Knaus,et al.  Study population in SUPPORT: patients (as defined by disease categories and mortality projections), surrogates, and physicians. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  W. Browner,et al.  Case-finding instruments for depression. Two questions are as good as many. , 1997, Journal of general internal medicine.

[9]  D. Patrick,et al.  Insights Pertaining to Patient Assessments of States Worse than Death , 1993, The Journal of Clinical Ethics.

[10]  D. Rubin,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 1988 .

[11]  Elizabeth H Bradley,et al.  Understanding the treatment preferences of seriously ill patients. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[13]  R. Gill,et al.  Cox's regression model for counting processes: a large sample study : (preprint) , 1982 .

[14]  S. Katz Studies of illness in the aged , 1963 .

[15]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 1988 .

[16]  W. Browner,et al.  Two Questions Are as Good as Many , 1997 .

[17]  S. Katz,et al.  STUDIES OF ILLNESS IN THE AGED. THE INDEX OF ADL: A STANDARDIZED MEASURE OF BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTION. , 1963, JAMA.

[18]  Daniel O. Scharfstein,et al.  Analysis of longitudinal data with irregular, outcome‐dependent follow‐up , 2004 .