↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for biases in survey-based estimates of population attributable fractions

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accounting for biases in survey-based estimates of population attributable fractions
Published in
Population Health Metrics, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12963-019-0196-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan Masters, Eric Reither

Abstract

This paper discusses best practices for estimating fractions of mortality attributable to health exposures in survey data that are biased by observed confounders and unobserved endogenous selection. Extant research has shown that estimates of population attributable fractions (PAF) from the formula using the proportion of deceased that is exposed (PAFpd) can attend to confounders, whereas the formula using the proportion of the entire sample exposed (PAFpe) is biased by confounders. Research has not explored how PAFpd and PAFpe equations perform when both confounding and selection bias are present. We review equations for calculating PAF based on either the proportion of deceased (pd) or the proportion of the entire sample (pe) that receives the exposure. We explore how estimates from each equation are affected by confounding bias and selection bias using hypothetical data and real-world survey data from the National Health Interview Survey-Linked Mortality Files, 1987-2011. We examine the association between cigarette smoking and all-cause mortality risk in the US adult population as an example. We show that both PAFpd and PAFpe calculate the true PAF in the presence of confounding bias if one uses the "weighted-sum" approach. We further show that both the PAFpd and PAFpe calculate biased PAFs in the presence of collider bias, but that the bias is more severe in the PAFpd formula. We recommend that researchers use the PAFpe formula with the weighted-sum approach when estimates of the exposure-outcome relationship are biased by endogenous selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 18%
Unspecified 1 9%
Mathematics 1 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 3 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,603,127
of 23,182,015 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#213
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,558
of 459,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,182,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 459,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.