Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24731233›Full record

ArticleJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2014

Examining moderation analyses in propensity score methods: application to depression and substance use.

Kerry M Green, Elizabeth A Stuart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The study of effect moderation in youth suicide-prevention studies.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Kerry M GreenDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health.
Elizabeth A StuartDepartment of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Funding

MARYLAND POPULATION RESEARCH CENTERR24HD041041 · NICHD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI RENDALL, MICHAEL S. · 2001 to 2016
$6.6M
Substance Use and Psychological Problems Among African Americans into MidlifeR01DA026863 · NIDA · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI GREEN, KERRY M · 2009 to 2012
$1.0M
Estimating Population Effects of Mental Health interventionsK25MH083846 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI STUART, ELIZABETH A. · 2008 to 2012
$780k
NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD041041NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA026863NIDA NIH HHS R01DA026863NIMH NIH HHS K25 MH083846NIMH NIH HHS K25MH083846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study provides guidance on how propensity score methods can be combined with moderation analyses (i.e., effect modification) to examine subgroup differences in potential causal effects in nonexperimental studies. As a motivating example, we focus on how depression may affect subsequent substance use differently for men and women.

methodUsing data from a longitudinal community cohort study (N = 952) of urban African Americans with assessments in childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and midlife, we estimate the influence of depression by young adulthood on substance use outcomes in midlife, and whether that influence varies by gender. We illustrate and compare 5 different techniques for estimating subgroup effects using propensity score methods, including separate propensity score models and matching for men and women, a joint propensity score model for men and women with matching separately and together by gender, and a joint male/female propensity score model that includes theoretically important gender interactions with matching separately and together by gender.

resultsAnalyses showed that estimating separate models for men and women yielded the best balance and, therefore, is a preferred technique when subgroup analyses are of interest, at least in this data. RESULTS also showed substance use consequences of depression but no significant gender differences.

conclusionsIt is critical to prespecify subgroup effects before the estimation of propensity scores and to check balance within subgroups regardless of the type of propensity score model used. RESULTS also suggest that depression may affect multiple substance use outcomes in midlife for both men and women relatively equally.

Indexed as

DepressionMajor Depressive DisorderPropensity ScoreSubstance-Related DisordersAdolescentAdultAlcoholismBlack or African AmericanChildFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleModels, TheoreticalUrban PopulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24731233
PMCPMC4172552

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.