↓ Skip to main content

Propensity score weighting for a continuous exposure with multilevel data

Overview of attention for article published in Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Propensity score weighting for a continuous exposure with multilevel data
Published in
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10742-016-0157-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan S. Schuler, Wanghuan Chu, Donna Coffman

Abstract

Propensity score methods (e.g., matching, weighting, subclassification) provide a statistical approach for balancing dissimilar exposure groups on baseline covariates. These methods were developed in the context of data with no hierarchical structure or clustering. Yet in many applications the data have a clustered structure that is of substantive importance, such as when individuals are nested within healthcare providers or within schools. Recent work has extended propensity score methods to a multilevel setting, primarily focusing on binary exposures. In this paper, we focus on propensity score weighting for a continuous, rather than binary, exposure in a multilevel setting. Using simulations, we compare several specifications of the propensity score: a random effects model, a fixed effects model, and a single-level model. Additionally, our simulations compare the performance of marginal versus cluster-mean stabilized propensity score weights. In our results, regression specifications that accounted for the multilevel structure reduced bias, particularly when cluster-level confounders were omitted. Furthermore, cluster mean weights outperformed marginal weights.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 11%
Psychology 4 9%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 7 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,498,675
of 23,857,313 outputs
Outputs from Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
#72
of 118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,021
of 344,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,857,313 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.