Back

Interrupted Time Series Design and Analyses in Health Policy Assessment

Jiang, H.; Rehm, J.; Tran, A.; Lange, S.

2024-08-02 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.08.01.24311280 medRxiv
Show abstract

Interrupted time series design is a quasi-experimental study design commonly used to evaluate the impact of a particular intervention (e.g., a health policy implementation) on a specific outcome. Two of the most often recommended analytical approaches to interrupted time series analysis are autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and Generalized Additive Models (GAM). We conducted simulation tests to determine the performance differences between ARIMA and GAM methodology across different policy effect sizes, with or without seasonality, and with or without misspecification of policy variables. We found that ARIMA exhibited more consistent results under certain conditions, such as with different policy effect sizes, with or without seasonality, while GAM were more robust when the model was misspecified. Given these findings, the variation between the models underscores the need for careful model selection and validation in health policy studies.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 9%
19.2%
Similar papers in this journal
2
BMC Medical Research Methodology
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.1%
Similar papers in this journal
3
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.7%
Similar papers in this journal
4
American Journal of Epidemiology
◐ 67 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
Similar papers in this journal
5
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.9%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
7
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.5%
8
Epidemiology
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
9
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.5%
10
Statistics in Medicine
○ 40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
12
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
13
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
15
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
16
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
◐ 16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
17
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
Journal of Public Health
◐ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
19
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.9%
22
Computational Biology and Chemistry
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
23
Healthcare
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
24
Medical Decision Making
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
26
Biology Methods and Protocols
◐ 61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
28
Research Synthesis Methods
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
29
Journal of Affective Disorders
○ 92 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.