Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying and Addressing Confounding Bias in Violence Prevention Research

  • Injury Epidemiology (S Marshall, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Epidemiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Violence prevention research has enhanced our understanding of individual and community risk and protective factors for aggression and violence. However, our knowledge of risk and protective factors for violence is highly dependent on observational studies, since there are few randomized trials of risk and protective factors for violence. Observational studies are susceptible to systematic errors, specifically confounding, and may lack internal validity.

Recent Findings

Many violence prevention studies utilize methods that do not correctly identify the set of covariates needed for statistical adjustment. This results in unwarranted matching and restriction leading to further confounding or selection bias. Covariate adjustment based on purely statistical criteria generates inconsistent results and uncertain conclusions.

Summary

Conventional methods used to identify confounding in violence prevention research are often inadequate. Causal diagrams have the potential to improve the understanding and identification of potential confounding biases in observational violence prevention studies, and methods like sensitivity analysis using quantitative bias analysis can help to address unmeasured confounding. Violence research studies should make more use of these methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TJ. Validity in epidemiologic studies. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TJ, editors. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 128–47.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Florence C, Shepherd J, Brennan I, Simon T. Effectiveness of anonymised information sharing and use in health service, police, and local government partnership for preventing violence related injury: experimental study and time series analysis. Brit Med J. 2011;342:d3313. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackson V, Chou S, Browne K. Protective factors against child victimization in the school and community: an exploratory systematic review of longitudinal predictors and interacting variables. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2017;18(3):303–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Ranapurwala SI, Berg MT, Casteel C. Reporting crime victimizations to the police and the incidence of future victimizations: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0160072. Study utilizes DAGs in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. • Yakubovich AR, Stöckl H, Murray J, Melendez-Torres GJ, Steinert JI, Glavin CEY, et al. Risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence against women: systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective-longitudinal studies. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(7):e1–e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304428 Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. • Zeoli AM, Malinski R, Turchan B. Risks and targeted interventions: firearms in intimate partner violence. Epidemiol Rev. 2016;38(1):125–39. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. •• Sivaraman J, Ranapurwala SI, Moracco KE, Marshall SW. Impact of firearm regulatory strictness on intimate partner homicide and homicide-suicide. Am J Prev Med. 2019 Jan;56(1):125–133. Study utilizes DAGs in violence research.

  8. • Bushman BJ, Newman K, Calvert SL, Downey G, Dredze M, Gottfredson M, et al. Youth violence: what we know and what we need to know. Am Psychol. 2016;71(1):17–39. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. • Rothman EF, McNaughton Reyes L, Johnson RM, LaValley M. Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth. Epidemiol Rev. 2012;34:103–19. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. • Choi KW, Sikkema KJ. Childhood maltreatment and perinatal mood and anxiety disorders: a systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(5):427–53. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. • Levey EJ, Gelaye B, Bain P, Rondon MB, Borba CP, Henderson DC, et al. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to decrease child abuse in high-risk families. Child Abuse Negl. 2017;65:48–57 Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. • Feltner C, Wallace I, Berkman N, Kistler CE, Middleton JC, Barclay C, et al. Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;320(16):1688–701. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. • Webster DW, Cerdá M, Wintemute GJ, Cook PJ. Epidemiologic evidence to guide the understanding and prevention of gun violence. Epidemiol Rev. 2016;38(1):1–4. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. • Chen D, Wu LT. Association between substance use and gun-related behaviors. Epidemiol Rev. 2016;38(1):46–61. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. • Wyatt LC, Ung T, Park R, Kwon SC, Trinh-Shevrin C. Risk factors of suicide and depression among asian american, native hawaiian, and pacific islander youth: a systematic literature review. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2015;26(2 Suppl):191–237. Study identifies systematic errors in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kivisto A, Ray B, Phalen P. Firearm legislation and fatal police shootings in the United States. AJPH Policy. 2017;107(7):1068–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kondo MC, South EC, Branas CC, Richmond TS, Wiebe DJ. The association between urban tree cover and gun assault: a case-control and case-crossover study. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(3):289–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiebe DJ, Richmond TS, Guo W, Allison PD, Hollander JE, Nance ML, et al. Mapping activity patterns to quantify risk of violent assault in urban environments. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller E, Breslau J, Chung WJ, Green JG, McLaughlin KA, Kessler RC. Adverse childhood experiences and risk of physical violence in adolescent dating relationships. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65(11):1006–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Snider CE, Brownell M, Dufault B, Barrett N, Prior H, Cochrane C. A multilevel analysis of risk and protective factors for Canadian youth injured or killed by interpersonal violence. Inj Prev. 2018;24(3):199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Duke NN, Pettingell SL, McMorris BJ, Borowsky IW. Adolescent violence perpetration: associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):e778–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Roberts AL, McLaughlin KA, Conron KJ, Koenen KC. Adulthood stressors, history of childhood adversity, and risk of perpetration of intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(2):128–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mills BM, Nurius PS, Matsueda RL, Rivara FP, Rowhani-Rahbar A. Prior arrest, substance use, mental disorder, and intent-specific firearm injury. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(3):298–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Culyba AJ, Abebe KZ, Albert SM, Jones KA, Paglisotti T, Zimmerman MA, et al. Association of future orientation with violence perpetration among male youths in low-resource neighborhoods. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(9):877–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Simckes MS, Simonetti JA, Moreno MA, Rivara FP, Oudekerk BA, Rowhani-Rahbar A. Access to a loaded gun without adult permission and school-based bullying. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61(3):329–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, Banton JG, Reay DT, Francisco JT, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(15):1084–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wiebe DJ. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41(6):771–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ. Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(11):2034–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Greenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology. 2003;14(3):300–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Westreich D, Greenland S. The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177(4):292–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37–48.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Field S, Onah M, van Heyningen T, Honikman S. Domestic and intimate partner violence among pregnant women in a low resource setting in South Africa: a facility-based, mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health. 2018;18(1):119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0612-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal inference. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, forthcoming; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rothman K. Epidemiologic methods in clinical trials. Cancer. 1977;39:1771–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sjölander A, Greenland S. Ignoring the matching variables in cohort studies - when is it valid and why? Stat Med. 2013;32(27):4696–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Howards PP, Schisterman EF, Poole C, Kaufman JS, Weinberg CR. Toward a clearer definition of confounding revisited with directed acyclic graphs. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(6):506–11.

  38. •• Gurka KK, Marshall SW, Casteel C, Runyan CW, Loomis DP, Richardson DB. An examination of strategies for preventing workplace homicides committed by perpetrators that have a prior relationship with the workplace or its employees. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54(12):1533–8. Study utilizes DAGs in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. •• Hatzenbuehler ML, Schwab-Reese L, Ranapurwala SI, Hertz M, Ramirez MR. Anti-bullying policies reduce the risk of bullying victimization: a state-level analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):e152411. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2411 Study utilizes DAGs in violence research.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. •• Ranapurwala SI, Peek-Asa C, Casteel C. Volunteering in adolescence and adult delinquency: a longitudinal analysis from the Add Health Study. Inj Epidemiol. 2016;3(1):26. Study utilizes DAGs in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Robins J, Hernán M. Estimation of the causal effects of time-varying exposures. In: Fitzmaurice G, Davidian M, Verbeke G, Molenberghs G, editors. Advances in longitudinal data analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall; 2009. p. 553–99.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Naimi AI, Cole SR, Kennedy EH. An introduction to g methods. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(2):756–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stoddard SA, Zimmerman MA, Bauermeister JA. Thinking about the future as a way to succeed in the present: a longitudinal study of future orientation and violent behaviors among African American youth. Am J Community Psychol. 2011;48(3–4):238–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Glymour MM, Greenland S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TJ, editors. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 183–209.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fewell Z, Davey Smith G, Sterne JAC. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(6):646–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, Maldonado G, McCandless LC, Greenland S. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(6):1969–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Last TL, Fox MP, Fink AK. Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data. London: Springer; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  48. •• Rowhani-Rahbar A, Zatzick D, Wang J, Mills BM, Simonetti JA, Fan MD, et al. Firearm-related hospitalization and risk for subsequent violent injury, death, or crime perpetration: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(7):492–500. Study utilizes sensitivity analyses in violence research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, 137 E. Franklin Street, Suite 500, Chapel Hill, NC, 27517, USA

    Shabbar I. Ranapurwala

  2. Injury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Shabbar I. Ranapurwala

Authors
  1. Shabbar I. Ranapurwala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shabbar I. Ranapurwala.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Injury Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ranapurwala, S.I. Identifying and Addressing Confounding Bias in Violence Prevention Research. Curr Epidemiol Rep 6, 200–207 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-019-00195-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-019-00195-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation