Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38544958›Full record

ArticleWiley interdisciplinary reviews

Bayesian estimation methods for survey data with potential applications to health disparities research.

Stephanie M Wu, Briana Joy K Stephenson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Stephanie M WuHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.ORCID 0000-0001-5110-8407
Briana Joy K StephensonHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.ORCID 0000-0002-6147-1039

Funding

BIOSTATISTICS/EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING GRANTS IN AIDST32AI007358 · NIAID · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Michael David Hughes · 1989 to 2026
$12.4M
PRIDE SUMMER INSTITUTE IN CARDIOVASCULAR GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGYR25HL105400 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DAVILA-ROMAN, VICTOR G., DE LAS FUENTES, LISA · 2010 to 2025
$5.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS R25 HL105400NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how and why certain communities bear a disproportionate burden of disease is challenging due to the scarcity of data on these communities. Surveys provide a useful avenue for accessing hard-to-reach populations, as many surveys specifically oversample understudied and vulnerable populations. When survey data is used for analysis, it is important to account for the complex survey design that gave rise to the data, in order to avoid biased conclusions. The field of Bayesian survey statistics aims to account for such survey design while leveraging the advantages of Bayesian models, which can flexibly handle sparsity through borrowing of information and provide a coherent inferential framework to easily obtain variances for complex models and data types. For these reasons, Bayesian survey methods seem uniquely well-poised for health disparities research, where heterogeneity and sparsity are frequent considerations. This review discusses three main approaches found in the Bayesian survey methodology literature: 1) multilevel regression and post-stratification, 2) weighted pseudolikelihood-based methods, and 3) synthetic population generation. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of each approach, examine recent applications and extensions, and consider how these approaches may be leveraged to improve research in population health equity.

Indexed as

Bayesian statisticshealth disparitiespopulation healthsurvey design

Identifiers

PMID38544958
PMCPMC10965238

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.