8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Directed Acyclic Graphs, Effect Measure Modification, and Generalizability

      ,
      American Journal of Epidemiology
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) have had a major impact on the field of epidemiology by providing straightforward graphical rules for determining when estimates are expected to lack causally interpretable internal validity. Much less attention has been paid, however, to what DAGs can tell researchers about effect measure modification and external validity. In this work, we describe 2 rules based on DAGs related to effect measure modification. Rule 1 states that if a variable, $P$, is conditionally independent of an outcome, $Y$, within levels of a treatment, $X$, then $PisnotaneffectmeasuremodifierfortheeffectofXonYonanyscale.Rule2statesthatifPisnotconditionallyindependentofYwithinlevelsofX$, and there are open causal paths from $XtoYwithinlevelsofP$, then $PisaneffectmeasuremodifierfortheeffectofXonYonatleast1scale(givennoexactcancelationofassociations).WethenshowhowRule1canbeusedtoidentifysufficientadjustmentsetstogeneralizenestedtrialsstudyingtheeffectofXonY$ to the total source population or to those who did not participate in the trial.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects☆

          Objectives This study aims to (1) elucidate whether the Hawthorne effect exists, (2) explore under what conditions, and (3) estimate the size of any such effect. Study Design and Setting This systematic review summarizes and evaluates the strength of available evidence on the Hawthorne effect. An inclusive definition of any form of research artifact on behavior using this label, and without cointerventions, was adopted. Results Nineteen purposively designed studies were included, providing quantitative data on the size of the effect in eight randomized controlled trials, five quasiexperimental studies, and six observational evaluations of reporting on one's behavior by answering questions or being directly observed and being aware of being studied. Although all but one study was undertaken within health sciences, study methods, contexts, and findings were highly heterogeneous. Most studies reported some evidence of an effect, although significant biases are judged likely because of the complexity of the evaluation object. Conclusion Consequences of research participation for behaviors being investigated do exist, although little can be securely known about the conditions under which they operate, their mechanisms of effects, or their magnitudes. New concepts are needed to guide empirical studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A Structural Approach to Selection Bias

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Epidemiology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0002-9262
                1476-6256
                February 2021
                February 01 2021
                August 25 2020
                February 2021
                February 01 2021
                August 25 2020
                : 190
                : 2
                : 322-327
                Article
                10.1093/aje/kwaa185
                32840557
                a65996ba-2430-42e6-9c14-c67c81f79849
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article