在调查死亡率中的社会不平等现象时,采用反概率加权法纠正自选偏差。

IF 6.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gitte Lindved Petersen, Terese Sara Høj Jørgensen, Jimmi Mathisen, Merete Osler, Erik Lykke Mortensen, Drude Molbo, Charlotte Ørsted Hougaard, Theis Lange, Rikke Lund
{"title":"在调查死亡率中的社会不平等现象时,采用反概率加权法纠正自选偏差。","authors":"Gitte Lindved Petersen, Terese Sara Høj Jørgensen, Jimmi Mathisen, Merete Osler, Erik Lykke Mortensen, Drude Molbo, Charlotte Ørsted Hougaard, Theis Lange, Rikke Lund","doi":"10.1093/ije/dyae097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Empirical evaluation of inverse probability weighting (IPW) for self-selection bias correction is inaccessible without the full source population. We aimed to: (i) investigate how self-selection biases frequency and association measures and (ii) assess self-selection bias correction using IPW in a cohort with register linkage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The source population included 17 936 individuals invited to the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank during 2009-11 (ages 49-63 years). Participants counted 7185 (40.1%). Register data were obtained for every invited person from 7 years before invitation to the end of 2020. The association between education and mortality was estimated using Cox regression models among participants, IPW participants and the source population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants had higher socioeconomic position and fewer hospital contacts before baseline than the source population. Frequency measures of participants approached those of the source population after IPW. Compared with primary/lower secondary education, upper secondary, short tertiary, bachelor and master/doctoral were associated with reduced risk of death among participants (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.60 [0.46; 0.77], 0.68 [0.42; 1.11], 0.37 [0.25; 0.54], 0.28 [0.18; 0.46], respectively). IPW changed the estimates marginally (0.59 [0.45; 0.77], 0.57 [0.34; 0.93], 0.34 [0.23; 0.50], 0.24 [0.15; 0.39]) but not only towards those of the source population (0.57 [0.51; 0.64], 0.43 [0.32; 0.60], 0.38 [0.32; 0.47], 0.22 [0.16; 0.29]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Frequency measures of study participants may not reflect the source population in the presence of self-selection, but the impact on association measures can be limited. IPW may be useful for (self-)selection bias correction, but the returned results can still reflect residual or other biases and random errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":14147,"journal":{"name":"International journal of epidemiology","volume":"53 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inverse probability weighting for self-selection bias correction in the investigation of social inequality in mortality.\",\"authors\":\"Gitte Lindved Petersen, Terese Sara Høj Jørgensen, Jimmi Mathisen, Merete Osler, Erik Lykke Mortensen, Drude Molbo, Charlotte Ørsted Hougaard, Theis Lange, Rikke Lund\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ije/dyae097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Empirical evaluation of inverse probability weighting (IPW) for self-selection bias correction is inaccessible without the full source population. We aimed to: (i) investigate how self-selection biases frequency and association measures and (ii) assess self-selection bias correction using IPW in a cohort with register linkage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The source population included 17 936 individuals invited to the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank during 2009-11 (ages 49-63 years). Participants counted 7185 (40.1%). Register data were obtained for every invited person from 7 years before invitation to the end of 2020. The association between education and mortality was estimated using Cox regression models among participants, IPW participants and the source population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants had higher socioeconomic position and fewer hospital contacts before baseline than the source population. Frequency measures of participants approached those of the source population after IPW. Compared with primary/lower secondary education, upper secondary, short tertiary, bachelor and master/doctoral were associated with reduced risk of death among participants (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.60 [0.46; 0.77], 0.68 [0.42; 1.11], 0.37 [0.25; 0.54], 0.28 [0.18; 0.46], respectively). IPW changed the estimates marginally (0.59 [0.45; 0.77], 0.57 [0.34; 0.93], 0.34 [0.23; 0.50], 0.24 [0.15; 0.39]) but not only towards those of the source population (0.57 [0.51; 0.64], 0.43 [0.32; 0.60], 0.38 [0.32; 0.47], 0.22 [0.16; 0.29]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Frequency measures of study participants may not reflect the source population in the presence of self-selection, but the impact on association measures can be limited. IPW may be useful for (self-)selection bias correction, but the returned results can still reflect residual or other biases and random errors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"53 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae097\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae097","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:如果没有完整的原始数据,就无法对用于纠正自选择偏差的反概率加权法(IPW)进行经验评估。我们的目标是(i)调查自选择如何对频率和关联测量产生偏差;(ii)评估在具有登记关联的队列中使用 IPW 校正自选择偏差的情况:研究对象包括 2009-11 年间受邀加入哥本哈根老龄化和中年生物库的 17 936 人(49-63 岁)。参与者人数为 7185 人(占 40.1%)。我们获得了每位受邀者从受邀前 7 年到 2020 年底的登记数据。利用Cox回归模型估算了参与者、IPW参与者和来源人群中教育与死亡率之间的关系:结果:与来源人群相比,参与者的社会经济地位更高,基线前接触医院的次数更少。在 IPW 之后,参与者的频率测量值接近来源人群。分别为 0.60 [0.46; 0.77]、0.68 [0.42; 1.11]、0.37 [0.25; 0.54]、0.28 [0.18; 0.46])。IPW略微改变了估计值(0.59 [0.45; 0.77]、0.57 [0.34; 0.93]、0.34 [0.23; 0.50]、0.24 [0.15; 0.39]),但不仅仅是向来源人群的估计值倾斜(0.57 [0.51; 0.64]、0.43 [0.32; 0.60]、0.38 [0.32; 0.47]、0.22 [0.16; 0.29]):在存在自我选择的情况下,研究参与者的频率测量可能无法反映来源人群,但对关联测量的影响可能是有限的。IPW 可能有助于纠正(自我)选择偏差,但返回的结果仍可能反映残余偏差或其他偏差以及随机误差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inverse probability weighting for self-selection bias correction in the investigation of social inequality in mortality.

Background: Empirical evaluation of inverse probability weighting (IPW) for self-selection bias correction is inaccessible without the full source population. We aimed to: (i) investigate how self-selection biases frequency and association measures and (ii) assess self-selection bias correction using IPW in a cohort with register linkage.

Methods: The source population included 17 936 individuals invited to the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank during 2009-11 (ages 49-63 years). Participants counted 7185 (40.1%). Register data were obtained for every invited person from 7 years before invitation to the end of 2020. The association between education and mortality was estimated using Cox regression models among participants, IPW participants and the source population.

Results: Participants had higher socioeconomic position and fewer hospital contacts before baseline than the source population. Frequency measures of participants approached those of the source population after IPW. Compared with primary/lower secondary education, upper secondary, short tertiary, bachelor and master/doctoral were associated with reduced risk of death among participants (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.60 [0.46; 0.77], 0.68 [0.42; 1.11], 0.37 [0.25; 0.54], 0.28 [0.18; 0.46], respectively). IPW changed the estimates marginally (0.59 [0.45; 0.77], 0.57 [0.34; 0.93], 0.34 [0.23; 0.50], 0.24 [0.15; 0.39]) but not only towards those of the source population (0.57 [0.51; 0.64], 0.43 [0.32; 0.60], 0.38 [0.32; 0.47], 0.22 [0.16; 0.29]).

Conclusions: Frequency measures of study participants may not reflect the source population in the presence of self-selection, but the impact on association measures can be limited. IPW may be useful for (self-)selection bias correction, but the returned results can still reflect residual or other biases and random errors.

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
International journal of epidemiology
International journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
2.60%
发文量
226
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Epidemiology is a vital resource for individuals seeking to stay updated on the latest advancements and emerging trends in the field of epidemiology worldwide. The journal fosters communication among researchers, educators, and practitioners involved in the study, teaching, and application of epidemiology pertaining to both communicable and non-communicable diseases. It also includes research on health services and medical care. Furthermore, the journal presents new methodologies in epidemiology and statistics, catering to professionals working in social and preventive medicine. Published six times a year, the International Journal of Epidemiology provides a comprehensive platform for the analysis of data. Overall, this journal is an indispensable tool for staying informed and connected within the dynamic realm of epidemiology.
×
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