1
|
Jackson JW, García-Albéniz X. Studying the Effects of Nonindicated Medications on Cancer: Etiologic versus Action-Focused Analysis of Epidemiologic Data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018; 27:520-524. [DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-17-0862] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2017] [Revised: 02/06/2018] [Accepted: 02/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
2
|
Keiffer GL, Lane FC. Propensity score analysis: an alternative statistical approach for HRD researchers. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT 2016. [DOI: 10.1108/ejtd-06-2015-0046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to introduce matching in propensity score analysis (PSA) as an alternative statistical approach for researchers looking to make causal inferences using intact groups.
Design/methodology/approach
An illustrative example demonstrated the varying results of analysis of variance, analysis of covariance and PSA on a heuristic data set. The three approaches were compared by results and violations of statistical assumptions.
Findings
Through the illustrative example, it is demonstrated how different statistical approaches can produce varied results. Only PSA mitigated pre-existing group differences without violating the assumption of independence.
Originality/value
This paper attempts to answer calls in the literature for more robust statistical methodologies to better inform human resource development practice and theory.
Collapse
|
3
|
|
4
|
Luce BR, Drummond MF, Dubois RW, Neumann PJ, Jönsson B, Siebert U, Schwartz JS. Principles for planning and conducting comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1:431-40. [DOI: 10.2217/cer.12.41] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Aims: To develop principles for planning and conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER). Methods: Beginning with a modified existing list of health technology assessment principles, we developed a set of CER principles using literature review, engagement of multiple experts and broad stakeholder feedback. Results & conclusion: Thirteen principles and actions to fulfill their intent are proposed. Principles include clarity of objectives, transparency, engagement of stakeholders, consideration of relevant perspectives, use of relevant comparators, and evaluation of relevant outcomes and treatment heterogeneity. Should these principles be found appropriate and useful, CER studies should be audited for adherence to them and monitored for their impact on care management, patient relevant outcomes and clinical guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bryan R Luce
- United BioSource Corporation, Science Policy, Bethesda, MD, USA
- University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | | | - Peter J Neumann
- Institute for Clinical Research & Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center & Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Bengt Jönsson
- Stockholm School of Economics, Department of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Uwe Siebert
- University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics & Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
- Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
- Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - J Sanford Schwartz
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Wharton School of Business, Medicine & Health Management & Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|