Multi-sample standardization and decomposition analysis: An application to comparisons of methamphetamine use among rural drug users in three American states

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 19, 2007, Pages 3612-3623

  Wang, Jichuan ^a   Carlson, Robert G ^a   Falck, Russel S ^a   Leukefeld, Carl ^b   Booth, Brenda M ^c  

^a WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK   (United States)

Author keywords

DECOMP; Drug users; Multiple populations; Standardization and decomposition

Indexed keywords

METHAMPHETAMINE;

ARTICLE; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DRUG ABUSE; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HEALTH STATISTICS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POPULATION RESEARCH; PROGNOSIS; RURAL POPULATION; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METHAMPHETAMINE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RURAL POPULATION; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34547520054     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2820     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Kitagawa EM. Components of a difference between two rates. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1955; 50:1168-1194.
2. Kitagawa EM. Standardized comparisons in population research. Demography 1964; 1:296-315.
3. Pullum TW. Standardization (World Fertility Survey Technical Bulletins, No. 597). International Statistical Institutes: Voorburg, Netherlands, 1978.
4. United Nations. The Methodology of Measuring the Impact of Family Planning Programs, Manual IX, Population Studies, No. 66. U.N.: New York, 1979.
5. Cho LJ, Retherford RD. Comparative analysis of recent fertility trends in East Asia. Proceedings of IUSSP International Population Conference 1973; 2:163-181.
6. Das Gupta P. Decomposition of the difference between two rates and its consistency when more than two populations are involved. Mathematical Population Studies 1991; 3:105-125.
7. Das Gupta P. Standardization and Decomposition of Rates: A User' s Manual. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P23-186. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1993.
8. Liao TF. A flexible approach for the decomposition of rate differences. Demography 1989; 26:717-726.
9. Clogg CC. Adjustment of rates using multiplicative models. Demography 1978; 15:523-539.
10. Clogg CC, Shockey JW. The effect of changing demographic composition on recent trends in underemployment. Demography 1985; 22:395-414.
11. Clogg CC, Eliason SR. A flexible procedure for adjusting rates and proportions, including statistical method for group comparisons. American Sociological Review 1988; 53:267-283.
12. Clogg CC, Shockey JW, Eliason SR. A general statistical framework for adjustment of rates. Sociological Methods and Research 1990; 19:156-195.
13. Wang J, Rahman A, Siegal HA, Fisher JH. Standardization and decomposition of rates: useful analytic techniques for behavior and health studies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 2000; 32:357-366.
14. Wang J. Components of difference in HIV seropositivity rate among injection drug users between low and high HIV prevalence regions. AIDS and Behavior 2003; 7:1-8.
15. Efron B. Bootatrap methods: another look at the Jackknife. Annals of Statistics 1979; 7:1-26.
16. Efron B. Nonparametric standard errors and confidence intervals (with Discussion). Canadian Journal of Statistics 1981; 9:139-172.
17. Miller RG. The Jackknife - a Review. Biometrika 1974; 61:1-15.
18. Mooney CZ, Duval BD. Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, 1993.
19. Booth JG, Sarkar S. Monte Carlo approximation of bootstrap variances. The American Statistician 1998; 52: 354-357.
20. Booth BM, Leukefeld C, Falck R, Wang J, Carlson R. Correlates of rural methamphetamine and cocaine users: results from a multi-state community study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 2006; 67:493-501.
21. Heckathom DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems 1997; 44:174-199.
22. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems 2002; 49:11-34.
23. Wang J, Carlson RG, Falck RS, Siegal HA, Rahman A, Li L. Respondent-driven sampling to recruit MDMA users: a methodological assessment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2005; 78:147-157.
24. Wang J, Falck RS, Li L, Rahman A, Carlson RG. Respondent-driven sampling in the recruitment of illicit stimulant drug users in a rural setting: findings and technical issues. Addictive Behaviors, in press.