ArticleHealth services & outcomes research methodology2025
Difference-in-differences analysis with repeated cross-sectional survey data.
Article in Health services & outcomes research methodology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Difference-in-differences (DiD) approach is one of the most widely used approaches for evaluating policy effects. However, traditional DiD methods may not recover the population-level average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) in the absence of population-level panel data, particularly when the composition of units in the treatment group changes over time. In this work, we address the following two challenges when applying DiD methods with repeated cross-sectional (RCS) survey data: (1) heterogeneous compositions of study samples across different time points, and (2) availability of data for only a sample of the population. We introduce a policy-relevant target estimand and establish its identification conditions. We then propose a new weighting approach that incorporates both estimated propensity scores and given survey weights. We establish the theoretical properties of the proposed method and examine its finite-sample performance through simulations. Finally, we apply our proposed method to a real-world data application, estimating the effect of a beverage tax on adolescent soda consumption in Philadelphia.
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.