English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Studies of large policy interventions typically do not involve randomization. Adjustments, such as matching, can remove the bias due to observed covariates, but residual confounding remains a concern. In this paper we introduce two analytical strategies to bolster inferences of the effectiveness of policy interventions based on observational data. First, we identify how study groups may differ and then select a second comparison group on this source of difference. Second, we match subjects using a strategy that finely balances the distributions of key categorical covariates and stochastically balances on other covariates. An observational study of the effect of parity on the severely ill subjects enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program illustrates our methods.

Using Multiple Control Groups and Matching to Address Unobserved Biases in Comparative Effectiveness Research