Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Lachenbruch, Peter" <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: appropriate analysis of tricky panel data |

Date |
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:48:50 -0700 |

Thanks. I had thought of that but hadn't fleshed it out. ________________________________________ From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Austin Nichols [austinnichols@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:52 AM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: Re: st: appropriate analysis of tricky panel data Tony-- Code time as "month relative to change" and use every observation in every cohort/panel. Obs at x+24 and y+6 contribute to estimates at time = -24 and so on. This is known as "synthetic panel data" but since you have actual and synthetic panel data, you can compare estimates from cohort 3 alone to those from the full dataset. On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Lachenbruch, Peter <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu> wrote: > A grad student came by with data on reimbursement that is collected at 6 month intervals with panels beginning every 18 months. At about the midpoint of the overall interval, there is a change in the reimbursement scheme. Thus, data may look like > Year 1 x x+6 x+12 x+18 x+24 x+30 > Year 2 y y+6 y+12 y+18 y+24 y+30 > Year 3 z z+6 z+12 z+18 z+24 z+30 > Year 4 w w+6 w+12 w+18 w+24 w+30 > Etc. > The value of x may be 0, y may be 18, z=36, w=54. Thus the panels overlap only a bit. > The time of the change is about 48 months after the beginning of the study, so the year 1 and year 2 cohorts are all completed before the change occurs. The third cohort will overlap the change it runs from 36 to 66, so part will be before the switch and part after. The fourth and fifth cohort will be entirely after the switch. > It is believed that the switch will affect reimbursement substantially. > I can analyze the data using the cohorts for years 1 and 2 and years 4 and 5 and ignore year 3 because it is partly before and partly after the switch. This doesn't feel right. One thing I could do is encode the switch variable as 0 0 0.5 1 1 and use it as a covariate or I could use the responses as occurring when the switch was in place or not. It's unclear to me if the switch will affect the response immediately or not (probably not since this is related to behavior). > Any ideas? > > Tony > > Peter A. Lachenbruch > Department of Public Health > Oregon State University > Corvallis, OR 97330 > Phone: 541-737-3832 > FAX: 541-737-4001 > * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: appropriate analysis of tricky panel data***From:*"Lachenbruch, Peter" <Peter.Lachenbruch@oregonstate.edu>

**Re: st: appropriate analysis of tricky panel data***From:*Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: R:RE: Multinomial logistic regression with cross-classified data structure** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: can't get rid of outer region margin in graph** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: appropriate analysis of tricky panel data** - Next by thread:
**st: How to separate multiple word assignments to a macro** - Index(es):