↓ Skip to main content

Preventive Effect Heterogeneity: Causal Inference in Personalized Prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Preventive Effect Heterogeneity: Causal Inference in Personalized Prevention
Published in
Prevention Science, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11121-017-0826-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

George W. Howe

Abstract

This paper employs a causal inference framework to explore two logically distinct forms of preventive effect heterogeneity relevant for studying variation in preventive effect as a basis for developing more personalized interventions. Following VanderWeele (2015), I begin with a discussion of causal interaction involving manipulable moderators that combine to yield more complex nonadditive effects. This is contrasted with effect heterogeneity, which involves variation in causal structure indexed by stable characteristics of populations or contexts. The paper then discusses one particularly promising approach, the baseline target moderated mediation (BTMM) design, which uses theoretically informed baseline target moderators to strengthen causal inference, suggesting methods for using BTMM designs to develop targeting strategies for personalized prevention. It presents examples of recent intervention trials that apply these different forms of moderation, and discusses causal inference and the problem of moderation confounding, reviewing methods for minimizing its impact, including recent advances in the use of propensity score matching.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 21%
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Master 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 45%
Social Sciences 5 17%
Mathematics 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Unknown 7 24%
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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,325,796
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#693
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,375
of 315,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 315,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.