Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22551997›Full record

ArticleNursing research

Causal mediation of a human immunodeficiency virus preventive intervention.

Donna L Coffman, Kari C Kugler

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. The effects of the family foundations prevention program on coparenting and child adjustment: a mediation analysis.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2014
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Statistical approaches for enhancing causal interpretation of the M to Y relation in mediation analysis.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donna L CoffmanThe Methodology Center and The College of Health and Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801, USA. dlc30@psu.edu
Kari C Kugler
Pennsylvania State University · US

Funding

THE REFINEMENT &APPLICATION OF MEDICAL DECISION MAKING IN PREVENTION SCIENCESP50DA010075 · NIDA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI LANZA, STEPHANIE T · 1996 to 2014
$24.5M
Methods CoreP50CA143188 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI FIORE, MICHAEL C · 2009 to 2013
$10.5M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA143188NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA010075NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA100075-15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessing mediation is important because most interventions are designed to affect an intermediate variable or mediator; this mediator, in turn, is hypothesized to affect outcome behaviors. Although there may be randomization to the intervention, randomization to levels of the mediator is not generally possible. Therefore, drawing causal inferences about the effect of the mediator on the outcome is not straightforward.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to introduce an approach to causal mediation analysis using the potential outcomes framework for causal inference and then discuss this approach in terms of the scientific questions addressed and the assumptions needed for identifying and estimating the effects.

methodsThe approach is illustrated using data from the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies: Reducing Risky Relationships-HIV intervention implemented with 243 incarcerated women re-entering the community. The intervention was designed to affect various mediators at 30 days postintervention, including risky relationship thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes, which were then hypothesized to affect engagement in risky sexual behaviors, such as unprotected sex, at 90 days postintervention.

resultsUsing propensity score weighting, we found the intervention resulted in a significant decrease in risky relationship thoughts (-0.529, p = .03) and risky relationship thoughts resulted in an increase in unprotected sex (0.447, p < .001). However, the direct effect of the intervention on unprotected sex was not significant (0.388, p = .479). DISCUSSION: By reducing bias, propensity score models improve the accuracy of statistical analysis of interventions with mediators and allow researchers to determine not only whether their intervention works but also how it works.

Indexed as

Risk Reduction BehaviorSafe SexAdultCausalityFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansNursing ResearchPrisonersPropensity ScoreUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22551997
PMCPMC3377683
OpenAlexW1990419815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.