Search

The World Health Organization specifies that sexual health requires the potential for pleasurable and safe sexual experiences. Yet epidemiologic research into sexual pleasure and other positive sexual outcomes has been scant. In this commentary, we aim to support the development and adoption of sex-positive epidemiology, which we define as epidemiology that incorporates the study of pleasure and other positive features alongside sexually transmitted infections and other familiar negative outcomes. We first call epidemiologists' attention to the potential role that stigma plays in the suppression of sex-positive research. We further describe existing measures of sex-positive constructs that may be useful in epidemiologic research. Finally, the study of sex-positive constructs is vulnerable to biases that are well-known to epidemiologists, especially selection bias, information bias, and confounding. We outline how these biases influence existing research and identify opportunities for future research. Epidemiologists have the potential to contribute a great deal to the study of sexuality by bringing their considerable methodological expertise to long-standing challenges in the field. We hope to encourage epidemiologists to broaden their sexual health research to encompass positive outcomes and pleasure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemiologists are attempting to address research questions of increasing complexity by developing novel methods for combining information from diverse sources. Cole et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2023;192(3)467–474) provide 2 examples of the process of combining information to draw inferences about a population proportion. In this commentary, we consider combining information to learn about a target population as an epidemiologic activity and distinguish it from more conventional meta-analyses. We examine possible rationales for combining information and discuss broad methodological considerations, with an emphasis on study design, assumptions, and sources of uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding characteristics of patients with propensity scores in the tails of the propensity score (PS) distribution has relevance for inverse-probability-of-treatment–weighted and PS-based estimation in observational studies. Here we outline a method for identifying variables most responsible for extreme propensity scores. The approach is illustrated in 3 scenarios: 1) a plasmode simulation of adult patients in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2011–2015) and 2) timing of dexamethasone initiation and 3) timing of remdesivir initiation in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 from February 2020 through January 2021. PS models were fitted using relevant baseline covariates, and tails of the PS distribution were defined using asymmetric first and 99th percentiles. After fitting of the PS model in each original data set, values of each key covariate were permuted and model-agnostic variable importance measures were examined. Visualization and variable importance techniques were helpful in identifying variables most responsible for extreme propensity scores and may help identify individual characteristics that might make patients inappropriate for inclusion in a study (e.g. off-label use). Subsetting or restricting the study sample based on variables identified using this approach may help investigators avoid the need for trimming or overlap weights in studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we advocate and expand upon a previously described monitoring strategy for efficient and robust estimation of disease prevalence and case numbers within closed and enumerated populations such as schools, workplaces, or retirement communities. The proposed design relies largely on voluntary testing, which is notoriously biased (e.g. in the case of coronavirus disease 2019) due to nonrepresentative sampling. The approach yields unbiased and comparatively precise estimates with no assumptions about factors underlying selection of individuals for voluntary testing, building on the strength of what can be a small random sampling component. This component enables the use of a recently proposed "anchor stream" estimator, a well-calibrated alternative to classical capture-recapture (CRC) estimators based on 2 data streams. We show that this estimator is equivalent to a direct standardization based on "capture," that is, selection (or not) by the voluntary testing program, made possible by means of a key parameter identified by design. This equivalency simultaneously allows for novel 2-stream CRC-like estimation of general mean values (e.g. means of continuous variables like antibody levels or biomarkers). For inference, we propose adaptations of Bayesian credible intervals when estimating case counts and bootstrapping when estimating means of continuous variables. We use simulations to demonstrate significant precision benefits relative to random sampling alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we compared location data from a dedicated Global Positioning System (GPS) device with location data from smartphones. Data from the Interventions, Equity, and Action in Cities Team (INTERACT) Study, a study examining the impact of urban-form changes on health in 4 Canadian cities (Victoria, Vancouver, Saskatoon, and Montreal), were used. A total of 337 participants contributed data collected for about 6 months from the Ethica Data smartphone application (Ethica Data Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and the SenseDoc dedicated GPS (MobySens Technologies Inc. Montreal, Quebec, Canada) during the period 2017–2019. Participants recorded an average total of 14,781 Ethica locations (standard deviation, 19,353) and 197,167 SenseDoc locations (standard deviation, 111,868). Dynamic time warping and cross-correlation were used to examine the spatial and temporal similarity of GPS points. Four activity-space measures derived from the smartphone app and the dedicated GPS device were compared. Analysis showed that cross-correlations were above 0.8 at the 125-m resolution for the survey and day levels and increased as cell size increased. At the day or survey level, there were only small differences between the activity-space measures. Based on our findings, we recommend dedicated GPS devices for studies where the exposure and the outcome are both measured at high frequency and when the analysis will not be aggregate. When the exposure and outcome are measured or will be aggregated to the day level, the dedicated GPS device and the smartphone app provide similar results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]