Addressing Spatially Structured Interference in Causal Analysis Using Propensity Scores

Environmental epidemiologists are increasingly interested in establishing causality between exposures and health outcomes. A popular model for causal inference is the Rubin Causal Model (RCM), which typically seeks to estimate the average difference in study units' potential outcomes. An import...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2021-01
Main Authors: Zirkle, Keith W, Marie-Abele Bind, Swall, Jenise L, Wheeler, David C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Diffusion effects
Environmental protection
Epidemiology
Exposure
Interference
Social networks
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Environmental epidemiologists are increasingly interested in establishing causality between exposures and health outcomes. A popular model for causal inference is the Rubin Causal Model (RCM), which typically seeks to estimate the average difference in study units' potential outcomes. An important assumption under RCM is no interference; that is, the potential outcomes of one unit are not affected by the exposure status of other units. The no interference assumption is violated if we expect spillover or diffusion of exposure effects based on units' proximity to other units and several other causal estimands arise. Air pollution epidemiology typically violates this assumption when we expect upwind events to affect downwind or nearby locations. This paper adapts causal assumptions from social network research to address interference and allow estimation of both direct and spillover causal effects. We use propensity score-based methods to estimate these effects when considering the effects of the Environmental Protection Agency's 2005 nonattainment designations for particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter (PM2.5) on lung cancer incidence using county-level data obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. We compare these methods in a rigorous simulation study that considers both spatially autocorrelated variables, interference, and missing confounders. We find that pruning and matching based on the propensity score produces the highest probability coverage of the true causal effects and lower mean squared error. When applied to the research question, we found protective direct and spillover causal effects.
ISSN:2331-8422