Time-varying confounding in epidemic intervention evaluations

TL;DR

This paper discusses the challenge of accurately estimating the effects of time-varying public health interventions on epidemics, highlighting how neglecting confounding can lead to biased results, especially in population-level studies.

Contribution

The paper explains the impact of time-varying confounding in epidemic intervention evaluations and demonstrates how it causes bias through causal reasoning and simulations.

Findings

Associational models are prone to bias from time-varying confounding.

Neglecting confounding leads to misleading conclusions about intervention effects.

Simulation shows directional bias caused by confounding in epidemic studies.

Abstract

Estimating the causal effect of a time-varying public health intervention on the course of an infectious disease epidemic is an important methodological challenge. During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers attempted to estimate the effects of social distancing policies, stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, vaccination programs, and many other interventions on population-level infection outcomes. However, measuring the effect of these interventions is complicated by time-varying confounding: public health interventions are causal consequences of prior outcomes and interventions, as well as causes of future outcomes and interventions. Researchers have shown repeatedly that neglecting time-varying confounding for individual-level longitudinal interventions can result in profoundly biased estimates of causal effects. However, the issue with time-varying confounding bias has often been overlooked in population-level epidemic intervention evaluations. In this paper, we explain why associational modeling to estimate the effects of interventions on epidemic outcomes based on observations can be prone to time-varying confounding bias. Using causal reasoning and model-based simulation, we show how directional bias due to time-varying confounding arises in associational modeling and the misleading conclusions it induces.