There's a reason they call them dummy variables: A note on the use of structural equation techniques in comparative effectiveness research

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 947-955

  Crown, William H ^a  

^a LEWIN GROUP   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trial design; Treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

CALCULATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DATA ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77956546773     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11537750-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Fisher E, Wennberg D, Stukel T, et al. The implications of regional variation in Medicare spending: part The content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 273-287
2. Fisher E, Wennberg D, Stukel T, et al. The implications of re-gional variation in medicare spending: part Health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 288-298
3. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effective-ness Research. Report to the President and Congress, June 30, Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 Jun
4. Johnson M, Crown W, Martin B, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from non-randomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources. Report of the ISPOR Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force: part III. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1062-1073
5. Chow G. Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica 1960; 28: 591-605
6. Crown W. Statistical models for the behavioral sciences. Santa Barbara (CA): Praeger Publishers, 1998
7. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979; 7: 1-26
8. Cook B, McGuire T, Meara E, et al. Adjusting for health status in non-linear models of health care disparities. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2009; 9: 1-21
9. Blinder A. Wage discrimination: reduced form and struc-tural estimates. J Hum Resour 1973; 8: 436-455
10. Oaxaca R. Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int Econ Rev 1973; 9: 693-709
11. Oaxaca R, Ransom M. On discrimination and the decom-position of wage differentials. J Econom 1994; 61: 5-21
12. Waidmann TA, Rajan S. Race and ethnic disparities in health care access and utilization: an examination of state variation. Med Care Res Rev 2000; 57 Suppl. 1: 55-84
13. Weinick RM, Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Racial and ethnic differences in access to and use of health care services, 1977 to Med Care Res Rev 2000; 57 Suppl. 1: 36-54
14. Hargraves JL, Hadley J. The contribution of insurance coverage and community resources to reducing racial/ethnic disparities in access to care. Health Serv Res 2003; 38 (3): 809-829
15. Kirby JB, Taliaferro G, Zuvekas SH. Explaining racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Med Care 2006; 44 Suppl. 5: I64-72
16. Basu A, Rathouz PJ. Estimating marginal and incremental effects on health outcomes using flexible link and variance function models. Biostatistics 2005; 6 (1): 93-109
17. Pylypchuk Y, Selden T. A discrete choice decomposition analysis of racial and ethnic differences in children's health insurance coverage. J Health Econ 2008 Jul; 27: 1109-1128
18. Fairlie R. An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposi-tion technique to logit and probit models. Bonn: IZA Discussion Papers, 2006
19. Yun M. Decomposing differences in the first moment. Econ Lett 2004; 82: 275-280
20. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55
21. D'Agostino Jr RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduc-tion in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998 Oct 15; 17 (19): 2265-2281
22. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006 Jun 15; 163 (12): 1149-1156
23. Johnson ML, Bush RL, Collins TC, et al. Propensity score anal-ysis in observational studies: outcomes following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Am J Surg 2006 Sep; 192 (3): 336-343
24. Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing compara-tive effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 Aug; 82 (2): 143-156
25. Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM. Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med Care 2007 Oct; 45 (10 Suppl. 2): S143-8
26. Imbens G. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 2000; 87 (3): 706-710
27. Stock JH, Trebbi F. Who invented instrumental variables regression? J Econ Persp 2003; 17 (3): 177-194
28. Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Maxwell-MacMillan, 1997
29. Wooldridge J. Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 2002
30. Heckman J. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and an estimator for such models. Ann Econ Soc Measure 1976; 5: 475-492
31. Heckman J. Sample selection as a specification error. Econo-metrica 1979; 47 (1): 153-161
32. Crown WH, Hylan TR, Meneades L. Antidepressant selec-tion and use and healthcare expenditures: an empirical approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (4): 435-448
33. Crown WH, Obenchain RL, Englehart L, et al. Application of sample selection models to outcomes research: the case of evaluating effects of antidepressant therapy on resource utilization. Stat Med 1998; 17 (17): 1943-1958
34. Hadley J, Polsky D, Mandelblatt JS, et al. An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a Medicare population. Health Econ 2003; 12: 171-186
35. Murnane R, Newstead S, Olsen R. Comparing public and private schools: the puzzling role of selectivity bias. J Bus Econ Stat 1985; 3 (1): 23-35
36. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM. Problems with instru-mental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90 (430): 443-450
37. Staiger D, Stock JH. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997; 65: 557-586
38. Hahn J, Hausman J. A new specification test for the validity of instrumental variables. Econometrica 2002; 70: 163-189
39. Kleibergen F, Zivot E. Bayesian and classical approaches to instrumental variables regression. J Econom 2003; 114: 29-72
40. Murray M. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. J Econ Persp 2007; 20 (4): 111-132
41. Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19 (6): 537-554
42. Basu A, Heckman JJ, Navarro-Lozano S, et al. Use of in-strumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients. Health Econ 2007; 16 (11): 1133-1157
43. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, HR1, 111th Cong.