Abstract

BackgroundPropensity scores are typically applied in retrospective cohort studies. We describe the feasibility of matching on a propensity score derived from a retrospective cohort and subsequently applied in a prospective cohort study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain before the start of acupuncture or usual care treatment and enrollment in a comparative effectiveness study that required patient reported pain outcomes.MethodsWe assembled a retrospective cohort study using data from 2010 to develop a propensity score for acupuncture versus usual care based on electronic healthcare record and administrative data (e.g., pharmacy) from an integrated health plan, Kaiser Permanente Northwest. The propensity score’s probabilities allowed us to match acupuncture-referred and non-referred patients prospectively in 2013-14 after a routine outpatient visit for pain. Among the matched patients, we collected patient-reported pain before treatment and during follow-up to assess the comparative effectiveness of acupuncture. We assessed balance in patient characteristics with the post-matching c-statistic and standardized differences.ResultsBased on the propensity score and other characteristics (e.g., patient-reported pain), we were able to match all 173 acupuncture-referred patients to 350 non-referred (usual care) patients. We observed a residual imbalance (based on the standardized differences) for some characteristics that contributed to the score; for example, age, -0.283, and the Charlson comorbidity score, -0.264, had the largest standardized differences. The overall balance of the propensity score appeared more favorable according to the post-matching c-statistic, 0.503.ConclusionThe propensity score matching was feasible statistically and logistically and allowed approximate balance on patient characteristics, some of which will require adjustment in the comparative effectiveness regression model. By transporting propensity scores to new patients, healthcare systems with electronic health records can conduct comparative effectiveness cohort studies that require prospective data collection, such as patient-reported outcomes, while approximately balancing numerous patient characteristics that might confound the benefit of an intervention. The approach offers a new study design option.

Highlights

  • Propensity scores are typically applied in retrospective cohort studies

  • The prospective cohort study included one cohort of patients who were referred for acupuncture and a second cohort of patients who were not referred for acupuncture, which served as the control cohort

  • Use of retrospective cohorts to develop and validate the propensity score We identified adult members at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW), an integrated delivery system with approximately 480,000 members, who had a diagnosis for chronic pain documented in the electronic health record (EHR) on at least three pain-related outpatient visits over a six to 18-month period

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Propensity scores are typically applied in retrospective cohort studies. We describe the feasibility of matching on a propensity score derived from a retrospective cohort and subsequently applied in a prospective cohort study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain before the start of acupuncture or usual care treatment and enrollment in a comparative effectiveness study that required patient reported pain outcomes. Propensity scores are typically used in retrospective cohort studies and involve fitting regression models to predict treatment groups based on selected characteristics derived from administrative healthcare data or electronic health record (EHR) data [2]. PROs may be required at baseline (e.g., to define cohort eligibility or assess treatment effect heterogeneity) or may be required as an outcome Examples of such PRO data include self-reported measures of depression or pain. While the systematic collection of PROs in the EHR remains uncommon in routine practice settings, collection of PROs is increasing [3]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.