Suchergebnisse

Mediation analysis is a methodology used to understand how and why behavioral phenomena occur. New mediation methods based on the potential outcomes framework are a seminal advancement for mediation analysis because they focus on the causal basis of mediation. Despite the importance of the potential outcomes framework in other fields, the methods are not well known in prevention and other disciplines. The interaction of a treatment (X) and a mediator (M) on an outcome variable (Y) is central to the potential outcomes framework for causal mediation analysis and provides a way to link traditional and modern causal mediation methods. As described in the paper, for a continuous mediator and outcome, if the XM interaction is zero, then potential outcomes estimators of the mediated effect are equal to the traditional model estimators. If the XM interaction is nonzero, the potential outcomes estimators correspond to simple direct and simple mediated contrasts for the treatment and the control groups in traditional mediation analysis. Links between traditional and causal mediation estimators clarify the meaning of potential outcomes framework mediation quantities. A simulation study demonstrates that testing for a XM interaction that is zero in the population can reduce power to detect mediated effects, and ignoring a nonzero XM interaction in the population can also reduce power to detect mediated effects in some situations. We recommend that prevention scientists incorporate evaluation of the XM interaction in their research.

Mediation analysis is an important statistical method in prevention research, as it can be used to determine effective intervention components. Traditional mediation analysis defines direct and indirect effects in terms of linear regression coefficients. It is unclear how these traditional effects are estimated in settings with binary variables. An important recent methodological advancement in the mediation analysis literature is the development of the causal mediation analysis framework. Causal mediation analysis defines causal effects as the difference between two potential outcomes. These definitions can be applied to any mediation model to estimate natural direct and indirect effects, including models with binary variables and an exposure–mediator interaction. This paper aims to clarify the similarities and differences between the causal and traditional effect estimates for mediation models with a binary mediator and a binary outcome. Causal and traditional mediation analyses were applied to an empirical example to demonstrate these similarities and differences. Causal and traditional mediation analysis provided similar controlled direct effect estimates, but different estimates of the natural direct effects, natural indirect effects, and total effect. Traditional mediation analysis methods do not generalize well to mediation models with binary variables, while the natural effect definitions can be applied to any mediation model. Causal mediation analysis is therefore the preferred method for the analysis of mediation models with binary variables.

Background: Mediation analysis methodology underwent many advancements throughout the years, with the most recent and important advancement being the development of causal mediation analysis based on the counterfactual framework. However, a previous review showed that for experimental studies the uptake of causal mediation analysis remains low. The aim of this paper is to review the methodological characteristics of mediation analyses performed in observational epidemiologic studies published between 2015 and 2019 and to provide recommendations for the application of mediation analysis in future studies. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for observational epidemiologic studies published between 2015 and 2019 in which mediation analysis was applied as one of the primary analysis methods. Information was extracted on the characteristics of the mediation model and the applied mediation analysis method. Results: We included 174 studies, most of which applied traditional mediation analysis methods (n = 123, 70.7%). Causal mediation analysis was not often used to analyze more complicated mediation models, such as multiple mediator models. Most studies adjusted their analyses for measured confounders, but did not perform sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounders and did not assess the presence of an exposure-mediator interaction. Conclusions: To ensure a causal interpretation of the effect estimates in the mediation model, we recommend that researchers use causal mediation analysis and assess the plausibility of the causal assumptions. The uptake of causal mediation analysis can be enhanced through tutorial papers that demonstrate the application of causal mediation analysis, and through the development of software packages that facilitate the causal mediation analysis of relatively complicated mediation models.

BACKGROUND: Mediation analysis methodology underwent many advancements throughout the years, with the most recent and important advancement being the development of causal mediation analysis based on the counterfactual framework. However, a previous review showed that for experimental studies the uptake of causal mediation analysis remains low. The aim of this paper is to review the methodological characteristics of mediation analyses performed in observational epidemiologic studies published between 2015 and 2019 and to provide recommendations for the application of mediation analysis in future studies. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for observational epidemiologic studies published between 2015 and 2019 in which mediation analysis was applied as one of the primary analysis methods. Information was extracted on the characteristics of the mediation model and the applied mediation analysis method. RESULTS: We included 174 studies, most of which applied traditional mediation analysis methods (n = 123, 70.7%). Causal mediation analysis was not often used to analyze more complicated mediation models, such as multiple mediator models. Most studies adjusted their analyses for measured confounders, but did not perform sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounders and did not assess the presence of an exposure-mediator interaction. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure a causal interpretation of the effect estimates in the mediation model, we recommend that researchers use causal mediation analysis and assess the plausibility of the causal assumptions. The uptake of causal mediation analysis can be enhanced through tutorial papers that demonstrate the application of causal mediation analysis, and through the development of software packages that facilitate the causal mediation analysis of relatively complicated mediation models. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01426-3.