Incremental Propensity Score Effects for Time-fixed Exposures

• Authors: Ashley Naimi, Emory University; Jacqueline E Rudolph, Emory University; Edward H Kennedy, Carnegie Mellon University; Abigail Cartus, University of Pittsburgh; Sharon Kirkpatrick, University of Waterloo; David M Haas, Indiana University; Hyagriv Simhan, University of Pittsburgh; Lisa M Bodnar, University of Pittsburgh
• Journal Title: EPIDEMIOLOGY
• Volume: Volume 32, Number 2
• Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS | 2021-03-01, Pages 202-208
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001315
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Epidemiology; Health Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Machine learning; Nonparametric methods; Double-robust estimation; Causal inference; Epidemiologic methods; CAUSAL INFERENCE

Abstract

When causal inference is of primary interest, a range of target parameters can be chosen to define the causal effect, such as average treatment effects (ATEs). However, ATEs may not always align with the research question at hand. Furthermore, the assumptions needed to interpret estimates as ATEs, such as exchangeability, consistency, and positivity, are often not met. Here, we present the incremental propensity score (PS) approach to quantify the effect of shifting each person's exposure propensity by some predetermined amount. Compared with the ATE, incremental PS may better reflect the impact of certain policy interventions and do not require that positivity hold. Using the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be (nuMoM2b), we quantified the relationship between total vegetable intake and the risk of preeclampsia and compared it to average treatment effect estimates. The ATE estimates suggested a reduction of between two and three preeclampsia cases per 100 pregnancies for consuming at least half a cup of vegetables per 1,000 kcal. However, positivity violations obfuscate the interpretation of these results. In contrast, shifting each woman's exposure propensity by odds ratios ranging from 0.20 to 5.0 yielded no difference in the risk of preeclampsia. Our analyses show the utility of the incremental PS effects in addressing public health questions with fewer assumptions.