Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Objective</h3><p>To define confounding bias in difference‐in‐difference studies and compare regression‐ and matching‐based estimators designed to correct bias due to observed confounders.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data sources</h3><p>We simulated data from linear models that incorporated different confounding relationships: time‐invariant covariates with a time‐varying effect on the outcome, time‐varying covariates with a constant effect on the outcome, and time‐varying covariates with a time‐varying effect on the outcome. We considered a simple setting that is common in the applied literature: treatment is introduced at a single time point and there is no unobserved treatment effect heterogeneity.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Study design</h3><p>We compared the bias and root mean squared error of treatment effect estimates from six model specifications, including simple linear regression models and matching techniques.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data collection</h3><p>Simulation code is provided for replication.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Principal findings</h3><p>Confounders in difference‐in‐differences are covariates that change differently over time in the treated and comparison group or have a time‐varying effect on the outcome. When such a confounding variable is measured, appropriately adjusting for this confounder (ie, including the confounder in a regression model that is consistent with the causal model) can provide unbiased estimates with optimal SE. However, when a time‐varying confounder is affected by treatment, recovering an unbiased causal effect using difference‐in‐differences is difficult.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>Confounding in difference‐in‐differences is more complicated than in cross‐sectional settings, from which techniques and intuition to address observed confounding cannot be imported wholesale. Instead, analysts should begin by postulating a causal model that relates covariates, both time‐varying and those with time‐varying effects on the outcome, to treatment. This causal model will then guide the specification of an appropriate analytical model (eg, using regression or matching) that can produce unbiased treatment effect estimates. We emphasize the importance of thoughtful incorporation of covariates to address confounding bias in difference‐in‐difference studies.</p></section>

Confounding and Confounding Control

On the definition of a confounder

[A Structural Classification of Strategies for Confounding Control in Research Design].

Confounding of three binary-variables counterfactual model

A Confounding Bridge Approach for Double Negative Control Inference on Causal Effects

Confounding, Homogeneity and Collapsibility for Causal Effects in Epidemiologic Studies

Distinguishing Between Mediators and Confounders is Important for the Causal Inference in Observational Studies

Confounding caused by causal-effect covariability

Detecting and Measuring Confounding Using Causal Mechanism Shifts

A Comparison of Approaches to Control for Confounding Factors by Regression Models

[Methods for Controlling Time-Varying Confounding in Pharmaco-Epidemiological Studies: a Systematic Reveiw].

On Associative Confounder Bias

Control of confounding through secondary samples.

Criteria for Confounders in Epidemiological Studies

[Application of directed acyclic graphs in identifying and controlling confounding bias].

Does Misclassifying Non-confounding Covariates as Confounders Affect the Causal Inference within the Potential Outcomes Framework?

Treatment Effect Estimation with Collider Bias and Confounding Bias

Confounding and regression adjustment in difference‐in‐differences studies

Measured and accounted-for confounding in pharmacoepidemiologic studies: Some thoughts for practitioners

Detecting multiple confounders

Toward Structural Controllability and Predictability in Directed Networks