LGBTQ+健康差异研究中的协变量调整:方法与假设的一致性

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Colleen A Reynolds, Jarvis T Chen, Payal Chakraborty, Lori B Chibnik, Janet W Rich-Edwards, Brittany M Charlton
{"title":"LGBTQ+健康差异研究中的协变量调整:方法与假设的一致性","authors":"Colleen A Reynolds, Jarvis T Chen, Payal Chakraborty, Lori B Chibnik, Janet W Rich-Edwards, Brittany M Charlton","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwaf197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2016, the NIH designated LGBTQ+ individuals (ie, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and all sexual and gender minorities) as a health disparities population. The growing interest in studying the health of LGBTQ+ populations merits revisiting the methodological approaches researchers employ. We elucidate how researchers can identify appropriate adjustment sets for causal questions using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). To illustrate these points, we simulated a simplified example using pregnancy loss as the outcome wherein we generate 1000 datasets with a sample size of 10 000 individuals. We motivate why covariates that are commonly used in LGBTQ+ health disparities research (eg, use of medically assisted reproduction) are mediators, not confounders, and how adjusting for these variables in causal research can induce bias by blocking part of the indirect effect of exposure on the outcome. Next, we illustrate the complexity of mediation analyses with social exposures due to mediator-outcome confounding induced by exposure and compare potential approaches. Then we demonstrate how collider stratification bias can arise from our sample recruitment and selection. Finally, we demonstrate how incorporating heterosexism (ie, stigma and discrimination) as an unobserved node in our DAG can guide decision-making on appropriate adjustment sets.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Covariate adjustment in LGBTQ+ health disparities research: aligning methods with assumptions.\",\"authors\":\"Colleen A Reynolds, Jarvis T Chen, Payal Chakraborty, Lori B Chibnik, Janet W Rich-Edwards, Brittany M Charlton\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aje/kwaf197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 2016, the NIH designated LGBTQ+ individuals (ie, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and all sexual and gender minorities) as a health disparities population. The growing interest in studying the health of LGBTQ+ populations merits revisiting the methodological approaches researchers employ. We elucidate how researchers can identify appropriate adjustment sets for causal questions using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). To illustrate these points, we simulated a simplified example using pregnancy loss as the outcome wherein we generate 1000 datasets with a sample size of 10 000 individuals. We motivate why covariates that are commonly used in LGBTQ+ health disparities research (eg, use of medically assisted reproduction) are mediators, not confounders, and how adjusting for these variables in causal research can induce bias by blocking part of the indirect effect of exposure on the outcome. Next, we illustrate the complexity of mediation analyses with social exposures due to mediator-outcome confounding induced by exposure and compare potential approaches. Then we demonstrate how collider stratification bias can arise from our sample recruitment and selection. Finally, we demonstrate how incorporating heterosexism (ie, stigma and discrimination) as an unobserved node in our DAG can guide decision-making on appropriate adjustment sets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaf197\",\"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":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaf197","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

2016年,美国国立卫生研究院将LGBTQ+个人(即女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人、酷儿以及所有性和性别少数群体)指定为健康差异人群。研究LGBTQ+人群健康的兴趣日益浓厚,值得重新审视研究人员使用的方法方法。我们阐明了研究人员如何使用有向无环图(dag)来确定因果问题的适当调整集。为了说明这些观点,我们模拟了一个简化的例子,使用怀孕损失作为结果,其中我们生成了1000个数据集,样本量为10000人。我们解释了为什么在LGBTQ+健康差异研究中常用的协变量(例如,医学辅助生殖的使用)是中介因子,而不是混杂因素,以及在因果研究中调整这些变量如何通过阻断暴露对结果的部分间接影响而引起偏倚。接下来,我们说明了由于暴露引起的中介结果混淆,社会暴露的中介分析的复杂性,并比较了潜在的方法。然后,我们演示了如何从我们的样本招募和选择中产生对撞机分层偏差。最后,我们展示了如何将异性恋(即耻辱和歧视)作为我们DAG中未观察到的节点来指导适当调整集的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Covariate adjustment in LGBTQ+ health disparities research: aligning methods with assumptions.

In 2016, the NIH designated LGBTQ+ individuals (ie, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and all sexual and gender minorities) as a health disparities population. The growing interest in studying the health of LGBTQ+ populations merits revisiting the methodological approaches researchers employ. We elucidate how researchers can identify appropriate adjustment sets for causal questions using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). To illustrate these points, we simulated a simplified example using pregnancy loss as the outcome wherein we generate 1000 datasets with a sample size of 10 000 individuals. We motivate why covariates that are commonly used in LGBTQ+ health disparities research (eg, use of medically assisted reproduction) are mediators, not confounders, and how adjusting for these variables in causal research can induce bias by blocking part of the indirect effect of exposure on the outcome. Next, we illustrate the complexity of mediation analyses with social exposures due to mediator-outcome confounding induced by exposure and compare potential approaches. Then we demonstrate how collider stratification bias can arise from our sample recruitment and selection. Finally, we demonstrate how incorporating heterosexism (ie, stigma and discrimination) as an unobserved node in our DAG can guide decision-making on appropriate adjustment sets.

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
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信