ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2024
Assessment of unmeasured confounding in the association between perceived discrimination and mental health in a predominantly African American cohort using g-estimation.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerceived discrimination in health care settings can have adverse consequences on mental health in minority groups. However, the association between perceived discrimination and mental health is prone to unmeasured confounding. The study aims to quantitatively evaluate the influence of unmeasured confounding in this association, using g-estimation.
methodsIn a predominantly African American cohort, we applied g-estimation to estimate the association between perceived discrimination and mental health, adjusted and unadjusted for measured confounders. Mental health was measured using clinical diagnoses of anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder. Perceived discrimination was measured as the number of patient-reported discrimination events in health care settings. Measured confounders included demographic, socioeconomic, residential and health characteristics. The influence of confounding was denoted as α1 from g-estimation. We compared α1 for measured and unmeasured confounding.
resultsStrong associations between perceived discrimination in health care settings and mental health outcomes were observed. For anxiety, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) unadjusted and adjusted for measured confounders were 1.30 (1.21, 1.39) and 1.26 (1.17, 1.36), respectively. The α1 for measured confounding was -0.066. Unmeasured confounding with α1=0.200, which was over three times that of measured confounding, corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.12 (1.01, 1.24). Similar results were observed for other mental health outcomes.
conclusionCompared with measured confounding, unmeasured that was three times measured confounding was not enough to explain away the association between perceived discrimination and mental health, suggesting that this association is robust to unmeasured confounding. This study provides a novel framework to quantitatively evaluate unmeasured confounding.
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.