Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

One of the most important tasks of decision analysts is to derive causal interpretations, on both the level of decision modeling and the level of statistical analyses of original data sets. Usually, an intervention, action, strategy, or risk factor profile is modeled to have a “causal effect” on one or more model parameters (e.g., probability, rate, or mean) of an outcome such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or any other outcome.

This entry introduces the key concepts of causal inference in medical decision making and explains the related concepts such as counterfactuals, causal graphs, and causal models and links them to well-known concepts of confounding. Finally, two examples are used to illustrate causal inference modeling for exposures and treatments.

Background

Decision analyses on risk factor interventions frequently include parameters derived from clinical or epidemiologic studies such as single relative risks or multivariate risk prediction functions (e.g., Framingham risk index for coronary heart disease, cancer risk scores, osteoporosis score). When applied in a decision model, changes in risk factors are then translated to causal effects on the risk of a disease or other outcome in the model. Thus, the causal interpretation of the modeling results strongly depends on the causal interpretation of each modeled risk factor. Therefore, this entry has a strong focus on epidemiologic modeling, which yields the parameters for the decision model.

Study Designs

The gold standard design to evaluate causal effects is the randomized controlled clinical trial. However, most decision models include (at least some) parameters or risk functions derived from epidemiologic (i.e., observational) studies, which have the potential for confounding. It is, therefore, crucial that all model parameters derived from epidemiologic studies be properly adjusted for confounding if one wants to use the results to derive causal interpretations.

Confounding

Definition of Confounding

Time-Independent Confounding

Standard textbook definitions of confounding and methods to control for confounding refer to independent risk factors for the outcome that are associated with the risk factor of interest but are not an intermediate step in the pathway from the risk factor to disease.

Time-Dependent Confounding

The more complicated (but probably not less common) case of time-dependent confounding refers to variables that may vary over time and simultaneously act as confounders (e.g., common cause of both exposure and disease) and intermediate steps (on the causal pathway from exposure to disease). In other words, confounder and exposure of interest mutually affect each other. For example, in a model evaluating the effect of weight loss on the risk of coronary heart disease, physical activity could be a time-dependent confounder because it is an independent risk factor for coronary heart disease, it influences weight, and it can also be influenced by weight.

Figure 1 (a) Time-independent confounding and (b) time-dependent confounding

None

Control for Confounding

Traditional textbook techniques to control for time-independent confounding include restriction, stratification, matching, and multivariate regression analysis. However, these methods have been criticized for being inadequate to control for time-dependent confounding. Other methods such as g-computation, marginal structural models, or structural nested models have been suggested as approaches to this problem.

Relevant Questions

To do a proper causal analysis, one must answer three

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading