Synthetic control methodology as a tool for evaluating population-level health interventions

Bouttell, J. , Craig, P. , Lewsey, J. , Robinson, M. and Popham, F. (2018) Synthetic control methodology as a tool for evaluating population-level health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 72(8), pp. 673-678. (doi:10.1136/jech-2017-210106) (PMID:29653993) (PMCID:PMC6204967)

[img]
Preview
Text
159690.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

200kB

Abstract

Background: Many public health interventions cannot be evaluated using randomised controlled trials so they rely on the assessment of observational data. Techniques for evaluating public health interventions using observational data include interrupted time series analysis, panel data regression-based approaches, regression discontinuity and instrumental variable approaches. The inclusion of a counterfactual improves causal inference for approaches based on time series analysis, but the selection of a suitable counterfactual or control area can be problematic. The synthetic control method builds a counterfactual using a weighted combination of potential control units. Methods: We explain the synthetic control method, summarise its use in health research to date, set out its advantages, assumptions and limitations and describe its implementation through a case study of life expectancy following German reunification. Results: Advantages of the synthetic control method are that it offers an approach suitable when there is a small number of treated units and control units and it does not rely on parallel preimplementation trends like difference in difference methods. The credibility of the result relies on achieving a good preimplementation fit for the outcome of interest between treated unit and synthetic control. If a good preimplementation fit is established over an extended period of time, a discrepancy in the outcome variable following the intervention can be interpreted as an intervention effect. It is critical that the synthetic control is built from a pool of potential controls that are similar to the treated unit. There is currently no consensus on what constitutes a ‘good fit’ or how to judge similarity. Traditional statistical inference is not appropriate with this approach, although alternatives are available. From our review, we noted that the synthetic control method has been underused in public health. Conclusions: Synthetic control methods are a valuable addition to the range of approaches for evaluating public health interventions when randomisation is impractical. They deserve to be more widely applied, ideally in combination with other methods so that the dependence of findings on particular assumptions can be assessed.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Popham, Dr Timothy and Bouttell, Mrs Janet and Craig, Dr Peter and Lewsey, Professor James
Authors: Bouttell, J., Craig, P., Lewsey, J., Robinson, M., and Popham, F.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment
College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > MRC/CSO Unit
Journal Name:Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher:BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:0143-005X
ISSN (Online):1470-2738
Published Online:13 April 2018
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2018 The Authors
First Published:First published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 72(8): 673-678
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

Project CodeAward NoProject NamePrincipal InvestigatorFunder's NameFunder RefLead Dept
727651SPHSU Core Renewal: Measuring and Analysing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health Research ProgrammeAlastair LeylandMedical Research Council (MRC)MC_UU_12017/13IHW - MRC/CSO SPHU
727671SPHSU Core Renewal: Informing Healthy Public Policy Research ProgrammePeter CraigMedical Research Council (MRC)MC_UU_12017/15IHW - MRC/CSO SPHU