Search

Background: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an annual survey designed to identify trends in the public's health. In its 2019 field survey, the U.S. state of GA tested a new 3 – item module to measure the numbers of bereaved, resident adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were eligible if they answered 'Yes' to the item 'Have you experienced the death of a family member or close friend in the years 2018 or 2019?'. This analysis explores two research questions. Can estimates for bereavement prevalence be derived without large sampling errors, low precision, and small subsamples? Can multiple imputation techniques be applied to overcome non-response and missing data to support multivariate modeling? Methods: BRFSS is a non-institutionalized sample of adults aged 18 years and older living in the U.S. state of Georgia. Analyses in this study were conducted under two scenarios. Scenario 1 applies the complex sample weights created by the Centers for Disease Control and imputes values for missing responses. Scenario 2 treats the data as a panel – no weighting combined with removal of persons with missing data. Scenario 1 reflects the use of BRFSS data for public health and policy, while Scenario 2 reflects data as it is commonly used in social science research studies. Results: The bereavement screening item has a response rate (RR) of 69.1% (5206 of 7534 persons). Demographic subgroups and categories of health have RR of 55% or more. Under Scenario 1, the estimated prevalence of bereavement is 45.38%, meaning that 3,739,120 adults reported bereaved in 2018 or 2019. The estimated prevalence is 46.02% with Scenario 2 which removes persons with any missing data (4,289 persons). Scenario 2 overestimates the bereavement prevalence by 1.39%. An illustrative logistic model is presented to show the performance of exposure to bereavement under the two data scenarios. Conclusions: Recent bereavement can be ascertained in a surveillance survey accounting for biases in response. Estimating bereavement prevalence is needed for measuring population health. This survey is limited to one US state in a single year and excludes persons aged 17 years and younger. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accuracy can be improved by taking multiple synchronous samples from each subject in a study to estimate the endpoint of interest if sample values are not highly correlated. If feasible, it is useful to assess the value of this cluster approach when planning studies. Multiple assessments may be the only method to increase power to an acceptable level if the number of subjects is limited.Methods: The main aim is to estimate the difference in outcome between groups of subjects by taking one or more synchronous primary outcome samples or measurements. A summary statistic from multiple samples per subject will typically have a lower sampling error. The number of subjects can be balanced against the number of synchronous samples to minimize the sampling error, subject to design constraints. This approach can include estimating the optimum number of samples given the cost per subject and the cost per sample.Results: The accuracy improvement achieved by taking multiple samples depends on the intra-class correlation (ICC). The lower the ICC, the greater the benefit that can accrue. If the ICC is high, then a second sample will provide little additional information about the subject's true value. If the ICC is very low, adding a sample can be equivalent to adding an extra subject. Benefits of multiple samples include the ability to reduce the number of subjects in a study and increase both the power and the available alpha. If, for example, the ICC is 35%, adding a second measurement can be equivalent to adding 48% more subjects to a single measurement study.Conclusion: A study's design can sometimes be improved by taking multiple synchronous samples. It is useful to evaluate this strategy as an extension of a single sample design. An Excel workbook is provided to allow researchers to explore the most appropriate number of samples to take in a given setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Propensity score methods have become a popular tool for reducing selection bias in making causal inference from observational studies in medical research. Propensity score matching, a key component of propensity score methods, normally matches units based on the distance between point estimates of the propensity scores. The problem with this technique is that it is difficult to establish a sensible criterion to evaluate the closeness of matched units without knowing estimation errors of the propensity scores. Methods: The present study introduces interval matching using bootstrap confidence intervals for accommodating estimation errors of propensity scores. In interval matching, if the confidence interval of a unit in the treatment group overlaps with that of one or more units in the comparison group, they are considered as matched units. Results: The procedure of interval matching is illustrated in an empirical example using a real-life dataset from the Nursing Home Compare, a national survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The empirical example provided promising evidence that interval matching reduced more selection bias than did commonly used matching methods including the rival method, caliper matching. Interval matching's approach methodologically sounds more meaningful than its competing matching methods because interval matching develop a more "scientific" criterion for matching units using confidence intervals. Conclusions: Interval matching is a promisingly better alternative tool for reducing selection bias in making causal inference from observational studies, especially useful in secondary data analysis on national databases such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]