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.
Similar papers in this journal
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 94%
- Patterns of rates of mortality in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 93%
- Individual Participant Data Network Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence: Study protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 94%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 94%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- How to mitigate selection bias in COVID-19 surveys: evidence from five national cohorts 92%
- The methodologies to assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions during COVID-19: a systematic review 92%
- Moving beyond risk ratios in sibling analysis: estimating clinically useful measures from family-based analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 92%
- UKCTOCS Update: Applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis 92%
- Graphing and reporting heterogeneous treatment effects through reference classes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating and Testing an Index of Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes in Comparative Studies 94%
- Whole population cohorts versus sampled comparators designs for evaluating health and educational outcomes of children with inborn rare conditions: a simulation study 92%
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 92%
"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.