L Paloma Rojas-Saunero, M Maria Glymour, Elizabeth Rose Mayeda
{"title":"Selection Bias in Health Research: Quantifying, Eliminating, or Exacerbating Health Disparities?","authors":"L Paloma Rojas-Saunero, M Maria Glymour, Elizabeth Rose Mayeda","doi":"10.1007/s40471-023-00325-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>To summarize recent literature on selection bias in disparities research addressing either descriptive or causal questions, with examples from dementia research.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Defining a clear estimand, including the target population, is essential to assess whether generalizability bias or collider-stratification bias are threats to inferences. Selection bias in disparities research can result from sampling strategies, differential inclusion pipelines, loss to follow-up, and competing events. If competing events occur, several potentially relevant estimands can be estimated under different assumptions, with different interpretations. The apparent magnitude of a disparity can differ substantially based on the chosen estimand. Both randomized and observational studies may misrepresent health disparities or heterogeneity in treatment effects if they are not based on a known sampling scheme.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Researchers have recently made substantial progress in conceptualization and methods related to selection bias. This progress will improve the relevance of both descriptive and causal health disparities research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48527,"journal":{"name":"Current Epidemiology Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11192540/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Epidemiology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-023-00325-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of review: To summarize recent literature on selection bias in disparities research addressing either descriptive or causal questions, with examples from dementia research.
Recent findings: Defining a clear estimand, including the target population, is essential to assess whether generalizability bias or collider-stratification bias are threats to inferences. Selection bias in disparities research can result from sampling strategies, differential inclusion pipelines, loss to follow-up, and competing events. If competing events occur, several potentially relevant estimands can be estimated under different assumptions, with different interpretations. The apparent magnitude of a disparity can differ substantially based on the chosen estimand. Both randomized and observational studies may misrepresent health disparities or heterogeneity in treatment effects if they are not based on a known sampling scheme.
Conclusion: Researchers have recently made substantial progress in conceptualization and methods related to selection bias. This progress will improve the relevance of both descriptive and causal health disparities research.