Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33426627›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2021

Copula Models for Addressing Sample Selection in the Evaluation of Public Health Programmes: An Application to the Leeds Let's Get Active Study.

Paolo Candio, Andrew J Hill, Stavros Poupakis, Anni-Maria Pulkki-Brännström, Chris Bojke, Manuel Gomes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Paolo CandioHealth Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. paolo.candio@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1521-088X
Andrew J HillLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Stavros PoupakisUCL Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Anni-Maria Pulkki-BrännströmUCL Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Chris BojkeLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Manuel GomesDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sample selectivity is a recurrent problem in public health programmes and poses serious challenges to their evaluation. Traditional approaches to handle sample selection tend to rely on restrictive assumptions. The aim of this paper is to illustrate a copula-based selection model to handle sample selection in the evaluation of public health programmes. Motivated by a public health programme to promote physical activity in Leeds (England), we describe the assumptions underlying the copula selection, and its relative advantages compared with commonly used approaches to handle sample selection, such as inverse probability weighting and Heckman's selection model. We illustrate the methods in the Leeds Let's Get Active programme and show the implications of method choice for estimating the effect on individual's physical activity. The programme was associated with increased physical activity overall, but the magnitude of its effect differed according to adjustment method. The copula selection model led to a similar effect to the Heckman's approach but with relatively narrower 95% confidence intervals. These results remained relatively similar when different model specifications and alternative distributional assumptions were considered. The copula selection model can address important limitations of traditional approaches to address sample selection, such as the Heckman model, and should be considered in the evaluation of public health programmes, where sample selection is likely to be present.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPublic HealthEnglandHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.