卫生政策与实践中的差异:现代方法综述

Shuo Feng, Ishani Ganguli, Youjin Lee, John Poe, Andrew Ryan, Alyssa Bilinski
{"title":"卫生政策与实践中的差异:现代方法综述","authors":"Shuo Feng, Ishani Ganguli, Youjin Lee, John Poe, Andrew Ryan, Alyssa Bilinski","doi":"arxiv-2408.04617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Difference-in-differences (DiD) is the most popular observational causal\ninference method in health policy, employed to evaluate the real-world impact\nof policies and programs. To estimate treatment effects, DiD relies on the\n\"parallel trends assumption\", that on average treatment and comparison groups\nwould have had parallel trajectories in the absence of an intervention.\nHistorically, DiD has been considered broadly applicable and straightforward to\nimplement, but recent years have seen rapid advancements in DiD methods. This\npaper reviews and synthesizes these innovations for medical and health policy\nresearchers. We focus on four topics: (1) assessing the parallel trends\nassumption in health policy contexts; (2) relaxing the parallel trends\nassumption when appropriate; (3) employing estimators to account for staggered\ntreatment timing; and (4) conducting robust inference for analyses in which\nnormal-based clustered standard errors are inappropriate. For each, we explain\nchallenges and common pitfalls in traditional DiD and modern methods available\nto address these issues.","PeriodicalId":501293,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - Econometrics","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Difference-in-Differences for Health Policy and Practice: A Review of Modern Methods\",\"authors\":\"Shuo Feng, Ishani Ganguli, Youjin Lee, John Poe, Andrew Ryan, Alyssa Bilinski\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2408.04617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Difference-in-differences (DiD) is the most popular observational causal\\ninference method in health policy, employed to evaluate the real-world impact\\nof policies and programs. To estimate treatment effects, DiD relies on the\\n\\\"parallel trends assumption\\\", that on average treatment and comparison groups\\nwould have had parallel trajectories in the absence of an intervention.\\nHistorically, DiD has been considered broadly applicable and straightforward to\\nimplement, but recent years have seen rapid advancements in DiD methods. This\\npaper reviews and synthesizes these innovations for medical and health policy\\nresearchers. We focus on four topics: (1) assessing the parallel trends\\nassumption in health policy contexts; (2) relaxing the parallel trends\\nassumption when appropriate; (3) employing estimators to account for staggered\\ntreatment timing; and (4) conducting robust inference for analyses in which\\nnormal-based clustered standard errors are inappropriate. For each, we explain\\nchallenges and common pitfalls in traditional DiD and modern methods available\\nto address these issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - ECON - Econometrics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - ECON - Econometrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.04617\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - Econometrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.04617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

差异推断法(DiD)是卫生政策领域最常用的观察因果推断方法,用于评估政策和项目在现实世界中的影响。为了估计治疗效果,差分法依赖于 "平行趋势假设",即在没有干预措施的情况下,治疗组和比较组的平均轨迹是平行的。本文为医学和卫生政策研究人员回顾并总结了这些创新。我们重点关注四个主题:(1) 评估卫生政策背景下的平行趋势假设;(2) 在适当的时候放宽平行趋势假设;(3) 使用估计器来考虑治疗时间的错开;(4) 在基于正态分布的聚类标准误差不合适的分析中进行稳健推断。我们将分别解释传统 DiD 中的挑战和常见陷阱,以及解决这些问题的现代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Difference-in-Differences for Health Policy and Practice: A Review of Modern Methods
Difference-in-differences (DiD) is the most popular observational causal inference method in health policy, employed to evaluate the real-world impact of policies and programs. To estimate treatment effects, DiD relies on the "parallel trends assumption", that on average treatment and comparison groups would have had parallel trajectories in the absence of an intervention. Historically, DiD has been considered broadly applicable and straightforward to implement, but recent years have seen rapid advancements in DiD methods. This paper reviews and synthesizes these innovations for medical and health policy researchers. We focus on four topics: (1) assessing the parallel trends assumption in health policy contexts; (2) relaxing the parallel trends assumption when appropriate; (3) employing estimators to account for staggered treatment timing; and (4) conducting robust inference for analyses in which normal-based clustered standard errors are inappropriate. For each, we explain challenges and common pitfalls in traditional DiD and modern methods available to address these issues.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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