Cargando…

Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners

INTRODUCTION: Statistical methods to assess the impact of an intervention are increasingly used in clinical research settings. However, a comprehensive review of the methods geared toward practitioners is not yet available. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We provide a comprehensive review of three methods to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Lihua, Cuerden, Meaghan S, Liu, Bian, Shariff, Salimah, Jain, Arsh K, Mazumdar, Madhu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33654443
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S275831
_version_ 1783656137315319808
author Li, Lihua
Cuerden, Meaghan S
Liu, Bian
Shariff, Salimah
Jain, Arsh K
Mazumdar, Madhu
author_facet Li, Lihua
Cuerden, Meaghan S
Liu, Bian
Shariff, Salimah
Jain, Arsh K
Mazumdar, Madhu
author_sort Li, Lihua
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Statistical methods to assess the impact of an intervention are increasingly used in clinical research settings. However, a comprehensive review of the methods geared toward practitioners is not yet available. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We provide a comprehensive review of three methods to assess the impact of an intervention: difference-in-differences (DID), segmented regression of interrupted time series (ITS), and interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA). We also compare the methods, and provide illustration of their use through three important healthcare-related applications. RESULTS: In the first example, the DID estimate of the difference in health insurance coverage rates between expanded states and unexpanded states in the post-Medicaid expansion period compared to the pre-expansion period was 5.93 (95% CI, 3.99 to 7.89) percentage points. In the second example, a comparative segmented regression of ITS analysis showed that the mean imaging order appropriateness score in the emergency department at a tertiary care hospital exceeded that of the inpatient setting with a level change difference of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.73) and a trend change difference of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03) after the introduction of a clinical decision support tool. In the third example, the results from an interventional ARIMA analysis show that numbers of creatinine clearance tests decreased significantly within months of the start of eGFR reporting, with a magnitude of drop equal to −0.93 (95% CI, −1.22 to −0.64) tests per 100,000 adults and a rate of drop equal to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99) tests per 100,000 per adults per month. DISCUSSION: When choosing the appropriate method to model the intervention effect, it is necessary to consider the structure of the data, the study design, availability of an appropriate comparison group, sample size requirements, whether other interventions occur during the study window, and patterns in the data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7910529
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79105292021-03-01 Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners Li, Lihua Cuerden, Meaghan S Liu, Bian Shariff, Salimah Jain, Arsh K Mazumdar, Madhu Risk Manag Healthc Policy Original Research INTRODUCTION: Statistical methods to assess the impact of an intervention are increasingly used in clinical research settings. However, a comprehensive review of the methods geared toward practitioners is not yet available. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We provide a comprehensive review of three methods to assess the impact of an intervention: difference-in-differences (DID), segmented regression of interrupted time series (ITS), and interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA). We also compare the methods, and provide illustration of their use through three important healthcare-related applications. RESULTS: In the first example, the DID estimate of the difference in health insurance coverage rates between expanded states and unexpanded states in the post-Medicaid expansion period compared to the pre-expansion period was 5.93 (95% CI, 3.99 to 7.89) percentage points. In the second example, a comparative segmented regression of ITS analysis showed that the mean imaging order appropriateness score in the emergency department at a tertiary care hospital exceeded that of the inpatient setting with a level change difference of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.73) and a trend change difference of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03) after the introduction of a clinical decision support tool. In the third example, the results from an interventional ARIMA analysis show that numbers of creatinine clearance tests decreased significantly within months of the start of eGFR reporting, with a magnitude of drop equal to −0.93 (95% CI, −1.22 to −0.64) tests per 100,000 adults and a rate of drop equal to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99) tests per 100,000 per adults per month. DISCUSSION: When choosing the appropriate method to model the intervention effect, it is necessary to consider the structure of the data, the study design, availability of an appropriate comparison group, sample size requirements, whether other interventions occur during the study window, and patterns in the data. Dove 2021-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7910529/ /pubmed/33654443 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S275831 Text en © 2021 Li et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Li, Lihua
Cuerden, Meaghan S
Liu, Bian
Shariff, Salimah
Jain, Arsh K
Mazumdar, Madhu
Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners
title Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners
title_full Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners
title_fullStr Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners
title_full_unstemmed Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners
title_short Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners
title_sort three statistical approaches for assessment of intervention effects: a primer for practitioners
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33654443
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S275831
work_keys_str_mv AT lilihua threestatisticalapproachesforassessmentofinterventioneffectsaprimerforpractitioners
AT cuerdenmeaghans threestatisticalapproachesforassessmentofinterventioneffectsaprimerforpractitioners
AT liubian threestatisticalapproachesforassessmentofinterventioneffectsaprimerforpractitioners
AT shariffsalimah threestatisticalapproachesforassessmentofinterventioneffectsaprimerforpractitioners
AT jainarshk threestatisticalapproachesforassessmentofinterventioneffectsaprimerforpractitioners
AT mazumdarmadhu threestatisticalapproachesforassessmentofinterventioneffectsaprimerforpractitioners