Comparison of two propensity score-based methods for balancing covariates: the overlap weighting and fine stratification methods in real-world claims data

Abstract

Abstract Background Two propensity score (PS) based balancing covariate methods, the overlap weighting method (OW) and the fine stratification method (FS), produce superb covariate balance. OW has been compared with various weighting methods while FS has been compared with the traditional stratification method and various matching methods. However, no study has yet compared OW and FS. In addition, OW has not yet been evaluated in large claims data with low prevalence exposure and with low frequency outcomes, a context in which optimal use of balancing methods is critical. In the study, we aimed to compare OW and FS using real-world data and simulations with low prevalence exposure and with low frequency outcomes. Methods We used the Texas State Medicaid claims data on adult beneficiaries with diabetes in 2012 as an empirical example (N = 42,628). Based on its real-world research question, we estimated an average treatment effect of health center vs. non-health center attendance in the total population. We also performed simulations to evaluate their relative performance. To preserve associations between covariates, we used the plasmode approach to simulate outcomes and/or exposures with N = 4,000. We simulated both homogeneous and heterogeneous treatment effects with various outcome risks (1-30% or observed: 27.75%) and/or exposure prevalence (2.5-30% or observed:10.55%). We used a weighted generalized linear model to estimate the exposure effect and the cluster-robust standard error (SE) method to estimate its SE. Results In the empirical example, we found that OW had smaller standardized mean differences in all covariates (range: OW: 0.0–0.02 vs. FS: 0.22–3.26) and Mahalanobis balance distance (MB) (< 0.001 vs. > 0.049) than FS. In simulations, OW also achieved smaller MB (homogeneity: <0.04 vs. > 0.04; heterogeneity: 0.0-0.11 vs. 0.07–0.29), relative bias (homogeneity: 4.04–56.20 vs. 20–61.63; heterogeneity: 7.85–57.6 vs. 15.0-60.4), square root of mean squared error (homogeneity: 0.332–1.308 vs. 0.385–1.365; heterogeneity: 0.263-0.526 vs 0.313-0.620), and coverage probability (homogeneity: 0.0–80.4% vs. 0.0-69.8%; heterogeneity: 0.0-97.6% vs. 0.0-92.8%), than FS, in most cases. Conclusions These findings suggest that OW can yield nearly perfect covariate balance and therefore enhance the accuracy of average treatment effect estimation in the total population.