Performance of a propensity score adjustment in longitudinal studies with covariate‐dependent representation

Longitudinal observational studies provide rich opportunities to examine treatment effectiveness during the course of a chronic illness. However, there are threats to the validity of observational inferences. For instance, clinician judgment and self‐selection play key roles in treatment assignment. To account for this, an adjustment such as the propensity score can be used if certain assumptions are fulfilled. Here, we consider a problem that could surface in a longitudinal observational study and has been largely overlooked. It can occur when subjects have a varying number of distinct periods of therapeutic intervention. We evaluate the implications of baseline variables in the propensity model being associated with the number of post baseline observations per subject and refer to it as ‘covariate‐dependent representation’. An observational study of antidepressant treatment effectiveness serves as a motivating example. The analyses examine the first 20 years of follow‐up data from the National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Depression Study, a longitudinal, observational study. A simulation study evaluates the consequences of covariate‐dependent representation in longitudinal observational studies of treatment effectiveness under a range of data specifications.The simulations found that estimates were adversely affected by underrepresentation when there was lower ICC among repeated doses and among repeated outcomes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  D. Hedeker,et al.  A comparison of mixed‐effects quantile stratification propensity adjustment strategies for longitudinal treatment effectiveness analyses of continuous outcomes , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 2003 .

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

[4]  G. Imbens The Role of the Propensity Score in Estimating Dose-Response Functions , 1999 .

[5]  D. Hedeker,et al.  MIXREG: a computer program for mixed-effects regression analysis with autocorrelated errors. , 1996, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[6]  D. Hedeker,et al.  MIXOR: a computer program for mixed-effects ordinal regression analysis. , 1996, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[7]  D. Hedeker,et al.  A random-effects ordinal regression model for multilevel analysis. , 1994, Biometrics.

[8]  J. Ware,et al.  Random-effects models for longitudinal data. , 1982, Biometrics.

[9]  W. Haenszel,et al.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. , 1959, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  J. Chemali,et al.  Summary and discussion of “ The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 2014 .

[11]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Modeling the Drop-Out Mechanism in Repeated-Measures Studies , 1995 .

[12]  P. McCullagh Regression Models for Ordinal Data , 1980 .

[13]  Klerman Gl,et al.  Introduction: overview of the clinical studies program. , 1979 .

[14]  Donald Hedeker,et al.  A Mixed-eeects Quintile-stratiÿed Propensity Adjustment for Eeectiveness Analyses of Ordered Categorical Doses ‡ , 2022 .