Abstract
Observational data with clustered structure may have confounding at one or more levels which when combined critically undermine result validity. We propose using multilevel models in Bayesian propensity score analysis to account for cluster and individual level confounding in the estimation of both propensity score and in turn treatment effect. In addition, our approach includes confounders in the outcome model for more flexibility to model outcome-covariate surface, minimizing the influence of feedback effect in Bayesian joint modeling of propensity score model and outcome model. In an extensive simulation study, we compare several propensity score analysis approaches with varying complexity of multilevel modeling structures. With each of proposed propensity score model, random intercept outcome model augmented with covariates adjustment well maintains the property of propensity score as balancing score and outperforms single level outcome model. To illustrate the proposed models, a case study is considered, which investigates the impact of lipid screening on lipid management in youth from three different health care systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abadie A, Imbens GW (2008) On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica 76(6):1537–1557. https://doi.org/10.3982/Ecta6474
Abadie A, Imbens GW (2009) Matching on estimated propensity score. NBER working paper series working paper (15301)
An W (2010) Bayesian propensity score estimators: incorporating uncertainties in propensity scores into causal inference. Sociol Methodol 40:151–189
Arpino B, Cannas M (2016) Propensity score matching with clustered data: an application to the estimation of the impact of caesarean section on the Apgar score. Stat Med 35(12):2074–2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6880
Arpino B, Mealli F (2011) The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies. Comput Stat Data Anal 55(4):1770–1780
Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46(3):399–424
Cochran WG (1968) The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 24(2):295–313
Elze MC, Gregson J, Baber U, Williamson E, Sartori S, Mehran R, Nichols M, Stone GW, Pocock SJ (2017) Comparison of propensity score methods and covariate adjustment evaluation in 4 cardiovascular studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 69(3):345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.060
Gelman A, Carlin J, Stern H, Dunson D, Vehtari A, Rubin D (2014) Bayesian data analysis (Chapman & Hall/CRC texts in statistical science), 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16018
Kaplan D, Chen J (2012) A two-step Bayesian approach for propensity score analysis: simulations and case study. Psychometrika 77(3):581–609
Karabatsos G, Walker SG (2012) A Bayesian nonparametric causal model. J Stat Plan Inference 142(4):925–934
Li F, Zaslavsky AM, Landrum MB (2013) Propensity score weighting with multilevel data. Stat Med 32(19):3373–3387
McCandless LC, Douglas IJ, Evans SJ, Smeeth L (2010) Cutting feedback in Bayesian regression adjustment for the propensity score. Int J Biostat 6(2):Article 16
McCandless LC, Gustafson P, Austin PC (2009) Bayesian propensity score analysis for observational data. Stat Med 28:94–112
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79(387):516–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2288398
Rubin DB (2007) The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 26(1):20–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2739
Su YS, Cortina J (2009) What do we gain? Combining propensity score methods and multilevel modeling. APSA 2009 Toronto meeting paper
Zigler CM, Watts K, Yeh RW, Wang Y, Coull BA, Dominici F (2013) Model feedback in Bayesian propensity score estimation. Biometrics 69(1):263–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01830.x
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by Baylor University (Grant No. 30300133), National Institutes of Health (Grant No. K23 HL111335), Baylor Scott & White Health (Grant No. 30300133), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71732006, 71572138, 71390331, 71401132, 71371150).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, Q., McNeal, C., Copeland, L.A. et al. Bayesian propensity score analysis for clustered observational data. Stat Methods Appl 29, 335–355 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-019-00484-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-019-00484-8