Causal analyses using education-health linked data for England: a case study
De Stavola, B. L. L.; Aparicio Castro, a.; Nguyen, V. G.; Lewis, K. M.; Dearden, L.; Harron, K.; Zylbersztejn, A.; Shumway, J.; Gilbert, R.
Show abstract
IntroductionThis article summarises lessons learnt from the Health Outcomes for young People throughout Education (HOPE) Study and serves as a real world, transferable application for addressing causal questions using administrative data. The HOPE study applied causal methods to analyses of administrative data in Education and Child Health Insights from Linked Data (ECHILD) aimed at studying the effectiveness of provision for special educational needs and disability (SEND) on health and education outcomes. MethodsDefining causal questions regarding the impact of SEND provision required judicious mapping of the question onto the data, leading to the selection of appropriate measures of effect, transparent handling of the data and control of confounding factors to estimate effects. We adopted the target trial emulation framework to guide these steps. Having encountered specific computational challenges in estimating the effects of interest, we simulated data that resembled the HOPE study and used them to practice the implementation of alternative estimation methods and to study impact of some of their assumptions. ResultsThe creation and analysis of the simulated data provided valuable insights. First, we learned the importance of aligning the target of estimation with the causal question at hand. Second, we observed how deviations from assumptions specific to each estimation method can affect results. Third, we highlighted the benefits of employing alternative estimation methods as sensitivity tools that can aid the interpretation of the resulting estimates. Finally, we offer user-friendly code in two programming languages (R and Stata) and accompanying simulated data to facilitate the implementation of these methods for similar causal questions. ConclusionWe recommend users of administrative data to fully specify -and possibly revise- the causal questions they wish to address and to carefully examine and compare assumptions, implementation and results obtained using alternative estimation methods.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.