ArticleWiley interdisciplinary reviews
Bayesian estimation methods for survey data with potential applications to health disparities research.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological control strategy with Poecilia reticulata for the reduction of Aedes spp. and Culex sp. in urban stormwater drains: Experience at Universidad del Valle, Cali, ColombiaBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2026Article
- A Practical Framework for Incorporating Complex Survey Design in Bayesian Kernel Machine Regression.Stats · 2026Article
- Bayesian multilevel analysis of multimorbidity among women in Somalia: prevalence, patterns, and determinants.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Diversity-aware Population Models: Quantifying Associations between Socio-Spatial Factors and Cognitive Development in the ABCD Cohort.Research square · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.