Accounting for selection bias due to death in estimating the effect of wealth shock on cognition for the Health and Retirement Study

The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is a longitudinal study of U.S. adults enrolled at age 50 and older. We were interested in investigating the effect of a sudden large decline in wealth on the cognitive ability of subjects measured using a dataset provided composite score. However, our analysis was complicated by the lack of randomization, time-dependent confounding, and a substantial fraction of the sample and population will die during follow-up leading to some of our outcomes being censored. The common method to handle this type of problem is marginal structural models (MSM). Although MSM produces valid estimates, this may not be the most appropriate method to reflect a useful real-world situation because MSM upweights subjects who are more likely to die to obtain a hypothetical population that over time, resembles that would have been obtained in the absence of death. A more refined and practical framework, principal stratification (PS), would be to restrict analysis to the strata of the population that would survive regardless of negative wealth shock experience. In this work, we propose a new algorithm for the estimation of the treatment effect under PS by imputing the counterfactual survival status and outcomes. Simulation studies suggest that our algorithm works well in various scenarios. We found no evidence that a negative wealth shock experience would affect the cognitive score of HRS subjects.

[1]  S. Burgard,et al.  Negative wealth shock and short-term changes in depressive symptoms and medication adherence among late middle-aged adults , 2017, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

[2]  J. Robins,et al.  Estimation of Regression Coefficients When Some Regressors are not Always Observed , 1994 .

[3]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[4]  Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen,et al.  Accounting for Bias Due to Selective Attrition: The Example of Smoking and Cognitive Decline , 2012, Epidemiology.

[5]  Guangyu Zhang,et al.  Extensions of the Penalized Spline of Propensity Prediction Method of Imputation , 2009, Biometrics.

[6]  I. Kleinschmidt,et al.  Investigating the relationship between neighborhood poverty and mortality risk: a marginal structural modeling approach. , 2013, Social science & medicine.

[7]  D. Rubin Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[8]  M. Joffe,et al.  A Potential Outcomes Approach to Developmental Toxicity Analyses , 2006, Biometrics.

[9]  G. Kavé,et al.  For better and for worse: the relationship between future expectations and functioning in the second half of life. , 2011, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[10]  J. Neyman On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method: the Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection , 1934 .

[11]  Amanda Sonnega,et al.  Cohort Profile: the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). , 2014, International journal of epidemiology.

[12]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Multiple Imputation for the Fatal Accident Reporting System , 1991 .

[13]  James R. Burke,et al.  Systematic Review: Factors Associated With Risk for and Possible Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Later Life , 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  Karen E. Smith,et al.  What the 2008 Stock Market Crash Means for Retirement Security , 2010, Journal of aging & social policy.

[15]  D. Rubin,et al.  Principal Stratification in Causal Inference , 2002, Biometrics.

[16]  V. Rocková,et al.  Posterior Concentration for Bayesian Regression Trees and their Ensembles , 2017 .

[17]  Paul Gustafson,et al.  Discussion of “On Bayesian Estimation of Marginal Structural Models” , 2015, Biometrics.

[18]  David J. Hand,et al.  Good methods for coping with missing data in decision trees , 2008, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[19]  H. Chipman,et al.  BART: Bayesian Additive Regression Trees , 2008, 0806.3286.

[20]  A. Stuck,et al.  Risk factors for functional status decline in community-living elderly people: a systematic literature review. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[21]  R. Little,et al.  Penalized Spline of Propensity Methods for Treatment Comparison , 2019, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[22]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology , 2000, Epidemiology.

[23]  P. Richard Hahn,et al.  Bayesian Regression Tree Models for Causal Inference: Regularization, Confounding, and Heterogeneous Effects , 2017, 1706.09523.

[24]  K. Langa,et al.  Assessment of cognition using surveys and neuropsychological assessment: the Health and Retirement Study and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study. , 2011, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.