Volume 54, Issue 2
METHODS ARTICLE

Comparison group selection in the presence of rolling entry for health services research: Rolling entry matching

Allison Witman PhD

Corresponding Author

E-mail address: witmana@uncw.edu

Cameron School of Business, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina

Correspondence

Allison Witman, PhD, Cameron School of Business, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403–5945.

Email: witmana@uncw.edu

Search for more papers by this author
Christopher Beadles MD, PhD

RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Search for more papers by this author
Yiyan Liu PhD

RTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts

Search for more papers by this author
Ann Larsen MS

RTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts

Search for more papers by this author
Nilay Kafali PhD

Department of Economics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts

Search for more papers by this author
Sabina Gandhi PhD

RTI International, Washington, District of Columbia

Search for more papers by this author
Peter Amico PhD

Amico Consulting, Orlando, Florida

Search for more papers by this author
Thomas Hoerger PhD

RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 09 November 2018
Citations: 3

Abstract

Objective

To demonstrate rolling entry matching (REM), a new statistical method, for comparison group selection in the context of staggered nonuniform participant entry in nonrandomized interventions.

Study Setting

Four Health Care Innovation Award (HCIA) interventions between 2012 and 2016.

Study Design

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation HCIA participants entering these interventions over time were matched with nonparticipants who exhibited a similar pattern of health care use and expenditures during each participant's baseline period.

Data Extraction Methods

Medicare fee‐for‐service claims data were used to identify nonparticipating, fee‐for‐service beneficiaries as a potential comparison group and conduct REM.

Principal Findings

Rolling entry matching achieved conventionally‐accepted levels of balance on observed characteristics between participants and nonparticipants. The method overcame difficulties associated with a small number of intervention entrants.

Conclusions

In nonrandomized interventions, valid inference regarding intervention effects relies on the suitability of the comparison group to act as the counterfactual case for the intervention group. When participants enter over time, comparison group selection is complicated. Rolling entry matching is a possible solution for comparison group selection in rolling entry interventions that is particularly useful with small sample sizes and merits further investigation in a variety of contexts.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 3

  • Matching with time‐dependent treatments: A review and look forward, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8533, 39, 17, (2350-2370), (2020).
  • Selection Bias in Observational Studies of Palliative Care: Lessons Learned, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.09.011, (2020).
  • Optimal matching approaches in health policy evaluations under rolling enrolment, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 10.1111/rssa.12521, 183, 4, (1411-1435), (2019).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.