arXiv subjects

Stephen W. Patrick

Publications and source records attributed to Stephen W. Patrick.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2023

Identifying Optimal Methods for Addressing Confounding Bias When Estimating the Effects of State-Level Policies

Background: Policy evaluation studies that assess how state-level policies affect health-related outcomes are foundational to health and social policy research. The relative ability of newer analytic methods to address confounding, a key source of bias in observational studies, has not been closely examined. Methods: We conducted a simulation study to examine how differing magnitudes of confounding affected the performance of four methods used for policy evaluations: (1) the two-way fixed effects (TWFE) difference-in-differences (DID) model; (2) a one-period lagged autoregressive (AR) model; (3) augmented synthetic control method (ASCM); and (4) the doubly robust DID approach with multiple time periods from Callaway-Sant'Anna (CSA). We simulated our data to have staggered policy adoption and multiple confounding scenarios (i.e., varying the magnitude and nature of confounding relationships). Results: Bias increased for each method: (1) as confounding magnitude increases; (2) when confounding is generated with respect to prior outcome trends (rather than levels), and (3) when confounding associations are nonlinear (rather than linear). The AR and ASCM have notably lower root mean squared error than the TWFE model and CSA approach for all scenarios; the exception is nonlinear confounding by prior trends, where CSA excels. Coverage rates are unreasonably high for ASCM (e.g., 100%), reflecting large model-based standard errors and wide confidence intervals in practice. Conclusions: Our simulation study indicated that no single method consistently outperforms the others. But a researcher's toolkit should include all methodological options. Our simulations and associated R package can help researchers choose the most appropriate approach for their data.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

Methodological considerations for estimating policy effects in the context of co-occurring policies

Understanding how best to estimate state-level policy effects is important, and several unanswered questions remain, particularly about the ability of statistical models to disentangle the effects of concurrently enacted policies. In practice, many policy evaluation studies do not attempt to control for effects of co-occurring policies, and this issue has not received extensive attention in the methodological literature to date. In this study, we utilized Monte Carlo simulations to assess the impact of co-occurring policies on the performance of commonly-used statistical models in state policy evaluations. Simulation conditions varied effect sizes of the co-occurring policies and length of time between policy enactment dates, among other factors. Outcome data (annual state-specific opioid mortality rate per 100,000) were obtained from 1999-2016 National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) Multiple Cause of Death mortality files, thus yielding longitudinal annual state-level data over 18 years from 50 states. When co-occurring policies are ignored (i.e., omitted from the analytic model), our results demonstrated that high relative bias (>85%) arises, particularly when policies are enacted in rapid succession. Moreover, as expected, controlling for all co-occurring policies will effectively mitigate the threat of confounding bias; however, effect estimates may be relatively imprecise (i.e., larger variance) when policies are enacted in near succession. Our findings highlight several key methodological issues regarding co-occurring policies in the context of opioid-policy research yet also generalize more broadly to evaluation of other state-level policies, such as policies related to firearms or COVID-19, showcasing the need to think critically about co-occurring policies that are likely to influence the outcome when specifying analytic models.

stat.ME↗