TY - JOUR T1 - Analytic methods for estimating the health effects of social policies in the presence of simultaneous change in multiple policies: A review JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.05.20205963 SP - 2020.10.05.20205963 AU - Ellicott C. Matthay AU - Laura M. Gottlieb AU - David Rehkopf AU - May Lynn Tan AU - David Vlahov AU - M. Maria Glymour Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/08/2020.10.05.20205963.abstract N2 - A growing body of empirical research seeks to quantify the causal effects of social policies on health by exploiting variation in the timing of policy changes across places. However, multiple social policies are often adopted simultaneously or in close succession in the same locations, creating clustering which must be handled analytically for valid inferences. Although this is a substantial methodological challenge for studies aiming to isolate social policy effects, yet systematic assessments of available analytic solutions and tradeoffs among approaches are lacking. We designated eight analytic solutions prior researchers have adopted, including efforts to disentangle individual policy effects and efforts to estimate the joint effects of clustered policies. We leveraged an existing systematic review of social policies and health to evaluate how often policy clustering is identified as a threat to validity and how often each analytic solution is applied in practice. Of the 55 studies, only 17 (31%) reported checking for any clustered policies, and 36 (67%) used at least one approach that helps address clustered policies. The most common approaches were adjusting for clustered policies, defining the outcome on subpopulations likely to be affected by the policy of interest but not other clustered policies, and selecting a less-correlated measure of policy exposure were the most common approaches. Systematically assessing policy clustering and applying analytic solutions when necessary would strengthen future studies on the health effects of social policies. Adequate reporting on these analytic decisions would facilitate evaluating validity and interpreting study findings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Evidence for Action program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study uses only secondary data from published studies and therefore does not constitute human subjects research.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data used in this study arise from published studies that are publicly available. ER -