Get access

Bayesian propensity score analysis for observational data


  • Lawrence C. McCandless,

    Corresponding author
    1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Canada
    • Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Assistant Professor of Biostatistics.

  • Paul Gustafson,

    1. Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Peter C. Austin

    1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada
    2. Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada
    3. Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author


In the analysis of observational data, stratifying patients on the estimated propensity scores reduces confounding from measured variables. Confidence intervals for the treatment effect are typically calculated without acknowledging uncertainty in the estimated propensity scores, and intuitively this may yield inferences, which are falsely precise. In this paper, we describe a Bayesian method that models the propensity score as a latent variable. We consider observational studies with a dichotomous treatment, dichotomous outcome, and measured confounders where the log odds ratio is the measure of effect. Markov chain Monte Carlo is used for posterior simulation. We study the impact of modelling uncertainty in the propensity scores in a case study investigating the effect of statin therapy on mortality in Ontario patients discharged from hospital following acute myocardial infarction. Our analysis reveals that the Bayesian credible interval for the treatment effect is 10 per cent wider compared with a conventional propensity score analysis. Using simulations, we show that when the association between treatment and confounders is weak, then this increases uncertainty in the estimated propensity scores. Bayesian interval estimates for the treatment effect are longer on average, though there is little improvement in coverage probability. A novel feature of the proposed method is that it fits models for the treatment and outcome simultaneously rather than one at a time. The method uses the outcome variable to inform the fit of the propensity model. We explore the performance of the estimated propensity scores using cross-validation. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Get access to the full text of this article