设计采用交错疗法的差异研究:关键概念与实用指南》。

IF 21.4 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Coady Wing, Madeline Yozwiak, Alex Hollingsworth, Seth Freedman, Kosali Simon
{"title":"设计采用交错疗法的差异研究:关键概念与实用指南》。","authors":"Coady Wing, Madeline Yozwiak, Alex Hollingsworth, Seth Freedman, Kosali Simon","doi":"10.1146/annurev-publhealth-061022-050825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators are a valuable method for identifying causal effects in the public health researcher's toolkit. A growing methods literature points out potential problems with DID estimators when treatment is staggered in adoption and varies with time. Despite this, no practical guide exists for addressing these new critiques in public health research. We illustrate these new DID concepts with step-by-step examples, code, and a checklist. We draw insights by comparing the simple 2 × 2 DID design (single treatment group, single control group, two time periods) with more complex cases: additional treated groups, additional time periods of treatment, and treatment effects possibly varying over time. We outline newly uncovered threats to causal interpretation of DID estimates and the solutions the literature has proposed, relying on a decomposition that shows how the more complex DIDs are an average of simpler 2 × 2 DID subexperiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":50752,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Designing Difference-in-Difference Studies with Staggered Treatment Adoption: Key Concepts and Practical Guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"Coady Wing, Madeline Yozwiak, Alex Hollingsworth, Seth Freedman, Kosali Simon\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-publhealth-061022-050825\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators are a valuable method for identifying causal effects in the public health researcher's toolkit. A growing methods literature points out potential problems with DID estimators when treatment is staggered in adoption and varies with time. Despite this, no practical guide exists for addressing these new critiques in public health research. We illustrate these new DID concepts with step-by-step examples, code, and a checklist. We draw insights by comparing the simple 2 × 2 DID design (single treatment group, single control group, two time periods) with more complex cases: additional treated groups, additional time periods of treatment, and treatment effects possibly varying over time. We outline newly uncovered threats to causal interpretation of DID estimates and the solutions the literature has proposed, relying on a decomposition that shows how the more complex DIDs are an average of simpler 2 × 2 DID subexperiments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Public Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":21.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-061022-050825\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-061022-050825","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在公共卫生研究人员的工具包中,差分估计法(DID)是确定因果效应的重要方法。越来越多的方法文献指出,当治疗方法在采用过程中交错进行并随时间变化时,DID 估计器存在潜在问题。尽管如此,在公共卫生研究中还没有解决这些新问题的实用指南。我们通过分步示例、代码和核对表来说明这些新的 DID 概念。我们将简单的 2 × 2 DID 设计(单一治疗组、单一对照组、两个时间段)与更复杂的情况(额外的治疗组、额外的治疗时间段以及可能随时间变化的治疗效果)进行比较,从而得出深刻的见解。我们概述了新发现的对 DID 估计值的因果解释的威胁,以及文献提出的解决方案,并通过分解说明了更复杂的 DID 如何是更简单的 2 × 2 DID 子实验的平均值。预计《公共卫生年度评论》第 45 卷的最终在线出版日期为 2024 年 4 月。修订后的估计值请参见 http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Designing Difference-in-Difference Studies with Staggered Treatment Adoption: Key Concepts and Practical Guidelines.

Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators are a valuable method for identifying causal effects in the public health researcher's toolkit. A growing methods literature points out potential problems with DID estimators when treatment is staggered in adoption and varies with time. Despite this, no practical guide exists for addressing these new critiques in public health research. We illustrate these new DID concepts with step-by-step examples, code, and a checklist. We draw insights by comparing the simple 2 × 2 DID design (single treatment group, single control group, two time periods) with more complex cases: additional treated groups, additional time periods of treatment, and treatment effects possibly varying over time. We outline newly uncovered threats to causal interpretation of DID estimates and the solutions the literature has proposed, relying on a decomposition that shows how the more complex DIDs are an average of simpler 2 × 2 DID subexperiments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual Review of Public Health
Annual Review of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
26.60
自引率
1.40%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Public Health has been a trusted publication in the field since its inception in 1980. It provides comprehensive coverage of important advancements in various areas of public health, such as epidemiology, biostatistics, environmental health, occupational health, social environment and behavior, health services, as well as public health practice and policy. In an effort to make the valuable research and information more accessible, the current volume has undergone a transformation. Previously, access to the articles was restricted, but now they are available to everyone through the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open program. This open access approach ensures that the knowledge and insights shared in these articles can reach a wider audience. Additionally, all the published articles are licensed under a CC BY license, allowing users to freely use, distribute, and build upon the content, while giving appropriate credit to the original authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信