ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Propensity score analysis for health care disparities: a deweighting approach.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Recommendations for Black Women Compared to White Women With Ovarian Cancer in the US.Cureus · 2026Article
- Assessing racial disparities in healthcare expenditure using generalized propensity score weighting.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPropensity score weighting is a useful tool to make causal or unconfounded comparisons between groups. According to the definition by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), estimates of health care disparities should be adjusted for health-status factors but not for socioeconomic status (SES) variables. There have been attempts to use propensity score weighting to generate estimates that are concordant with IOM's definition. However, the existing propensity score methods do not preserve SES distributions in minority and majority groups unless SES variables are independent of health status variables.
methodsThe present study introduces a deweighting method that uses two types of propensity scores. One is a function of all covariates of health status and SES variables and is used to weight study subjects to adjust for them. The other is a function of only the SES variables and is used to deweight the subjects to preserve the original SES distributions.
resultsThe procedure of deweighting is illustrated using a dataset from a right heart catheterization (RHC) study, where it was used to examine whether there was a disparity between black and white patients in receiving RHC. The empirical example provided promising evidence that the deweighting method successfully preserved the marginal SES distributions for both racial groups but balanced the conditional distributions of health status given SES.
conclusionsDeweighting is a promising tool for implementing the IOM-definition of health care disparities. The method is expected to be broadly applied to quantitative research on health care disparities.
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.