发病率和死亡率领域面板数据因果分析的方法和方法

IF 1.5 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY Comparative Population Studies Pub Date : 2021-04-29 DOI:10.12765/CPOS-2021-03
R. Hoffmann, G. Doblhammer
{"title":"发病率和死亡率领域面板数据因果分析的方法和方法","authors":"R. Hoffmann, G. Doblhammer","doi":"10.12765/CPOS-2021-03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We aim to give an overview of the state of the art of causal analysis of demographic issues related to morbidity and mortality. We will systematically introduce strategies to identify causal mechanisms, which are inherently linked to panel data from observational surveys and population registers. We will focus on health and mortality, and on the issues of unobserved heterogeneity and reverse causation between health and (1) retirement, (2) socio-economic status, and (3) characteristics of partnership and fertility history. \nThe boundaries between demographic research on mortality and morbidity and the neighbouring disciplines epidemiology, public health and economy are often blurred. We will highlight the specific contribution of demography by reviewing methods used in the demographic literature. We classify these methods according to important criteria, such as a design-based versus model-based approach and control for unobserved confounders. We present examples from the literature for each of the methods and discuss the assumptions and the advantages and disadvantages of the methods for the identification of causal effects in demographic morbidity and mortality research. \nThe differentiation between methods that control for unobserved confounders and those that do not reveal a fundamental difference between (1) methods that try to emulate a randomised experiment and have higher internal validity and (2) methods that attempt to achieve conditional independence by including all relevant factors in the model. The latter usually have higher external validity and require more assumptions and prior knowledge of relevant factors and their relationships. It is impossible to provide a general definition of the sort of validity that is more important, as there is always a trade-off between generalising the results to the population of interest and avoiding biases in the estimation of causal effects in the sample. We hope that our review will aid researchers in identifying strategies to answer their specific research question. \n*  This article belongs to a special issue on \"Identification of causal mechanisms in demographic research: The contribution of panel data\".","PeriodicalId":44592,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Population Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Approaches and Methods for Causal Analysis of Panel Data in the Area of Morbidity and Mortality\",\"authors\":\"R. Hoffmann, G. Doblhammer\",\"doi\":\"10.12765/CPOS-2021-03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We aim to give an overview of the state of the art of causal analysis of demographic issues related to morbidity and mortality. We will systematically introduce strategies to identify causal mechanisms, which are inherently linked to panel data from observational surveys and population registers. We will focus on health and mortality, and on the issues of unobserved heterogeneity and reverse causation between health and (1) retirement, (2) socio-economic status, and (3) characteristics of partnership and fertility history. \\nThe boundaries between demographic research on mortality and morbidity and the neighbouring disciplines epidemiology, public health and economy are often blurred. We will highlight the specific contribution of demography by reviewing methods used in the demographic literature. We classify these methods according to important criteria, such as a design-based versus model-based approach and control for unobserved confounders. We present examples from the literature for each of the methods and discuss the assumptions and the advantages and disadvantages of the methods for the identification of causal effects in demographic morbidity and mortality research. \\nThe differentiation between methods that control for unobserved confounders and those that do not reveal a fundamental difference between (1) methods that try to emulate a randomised experiment and have higher internal validity and (2) methods that attempt to achieve conditional independence by including all relevant factors in the model. The latter usually have higher external validity and require more assumptions and prior knowledge of relevant factors and their relationships. It is impossible to provide a general definition of the sort of validity that is more important, as there is always a trade-off between generalising the results to the population of interest and avoiding biases in the estimation of causal effects in the sample. We hope that our review will aid researchers in identifying strategies to answer their specific research question. \\n*  This article belongs to a special issue on \\\"Identification of causal mechanisms in demographic research: The contribution of panel data\\\".\",\"PeriodicalId\":44592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Population Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Population Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12765/CPOS-2021-03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Population Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12765/CPOS-2021-03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们的目的是概述与发病率和死亡率相关的人口统计学问题的因果分析的最新技术。我们将系统地引入确定因果机制的策略,这些机制与观察性调查和人口登记的小组数据有着内在的联系。我们将重点关注健康和死亡率,以及健康与(1)退休、(2)社会经济地位和(3)伴侣关系和生育史特征之间未观察到的异质性和反向因果关系问题。关于死亡率和发病率的人口统计学研究与邻近学科流行病学、公共卫生和经济之间的界限往往很模糊。我们将通过回顾人口学文献中使用的方法来强调人口学的具体贡献。我们根据重要标准对这些方法进行分类,例如基于设计与基于模型的方法以及对未观察到的混杂因素的控制。我们为每种方法提供了文献中的例子,并讨论了在人口发病率和死亡率研究中识别因果效应的方法的假设和优缺点。控制未观察到的混杂因素的方法和不揭示(1)试图模拟随机实验并具有更高内部有效性的方法与(2)试图通过在模型中包括所有相关因素来实现条件独立性的方法之间的根本差异的方法的区别。后者通常具有更高的外部有效性,需要更多的假设和对相关因素及其关系的先验知识。不可能提供更重要的有效性的一般定义,因为在将结果推广到感兴趣的人群和避免样本中因果效应估计的偏差之间总是存在权衡。我们希望我们的综述将帮助研究人员确定策略,以回答他们的具体研究问题*这篇文章属于“人口统计学研究中因果机制的识别:面板数据的贡献”的特刊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Approaches and Methods for Causal Analysis of Panel Data in the Area of Morbidity and Mortality
We aim to give an overview of the state of the art of causal analysis of demographic issues related to morbidity and mortality. We will systematically introduce strategies to identify causal mechanisms, which are inherently linked to panel data from observational surveys and population registers. We will focus on health and mortality, and on the issues of unobserved heterogeneity and reverse causation between health and (1) retirement, (2) socio-economic status, and (3) characteristics of partnership and fertility history. The boundaries between demographic research on mortality and morbidity and the neighbouring disciplines epidemiology, public health and economy are often blurred. We will highlight the specific contribution of demography by reviewing methods used in the demographic literature. We classify these methods according to important criteria, such as a design-based versus model-based approach and control for unobserved confounders. We present examples from the literature for each of the methods and discuss the assumptions and the advantages and disadvantages of the methods for the identification of causal effects in demographic morbidity and mortality research. The differentiation between methods that control for unobserved confounders and those that do not reveal a fundamental difference between (1) methods that try to emulate a randomised experiment and have higher internal validity and (2) methods that attempt to achieve conditional independence by including all relevant factors in the model. The latter usually have higher external validity and require more assumptions and prior knowledge of relevant factors and their relationships. It is impossible to provide a general definition of the sort of validity that is more important, as there is always a trade-off between generalising the results to the population of interest and avoiding biases in the estimation of causal effects in the sample. We hope that our review will aid researchers in identifying strategies to answer their specific research question. *  This article belongs to a special issue on "Identification of causal mechanisms in demographic research: The contribution of panel data".
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Did smallpox cause stillbirths? Maternal smallpox infection, vaccination, and stillbirths in Sweden, 1780-1839. Social Resources are Associated With Higher Fertility Intentions in Contemporary Finland Healthy Lifespan Statistics Derived From Cross-Sectional Prevalence Data Using the Sullivan Method are Informative Summary Measures of Population Health A Quarter Century of Change in Family and Gender-Role Attitudes in Hungary Scarred for Life? Early-Life Experience of the Post-Reunification Economic Crisis in East Germany and Physical and Mental Health Outcomes in Early Adulthood
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1