title: Exploring two cost-adjustment methods for selection bias in a small sample: using a fetal cardiology dataset.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  In economic evaluations of healthcare technologies, situations arise where data are not randomized and numbers are small. For this reason, obtaining reliable cost estimates of such interventions may be difficult. This study explores two approaches in obtaining cost estimates for pregnant women screened for a fetal cardiac anomaly.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two methods to reduce selection bias in health care: regression analyses and propensity scoring methods were applied to the total mean costs of pregnancy for women who received specialist cardiac advice by means of two referral modes: telemedicine and direct referral.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The observed total mean costs of pregnancy were higher for the telemedicine group than the direct referral group (4,918 versus 4,311 GBP). The regression model found that referral mode was not a significant predictor of costs and the cost difference between the two groups was reduced from 607 to 94 GBP. After applying the various propensity score methods, the groups were balanced in terms of sizes and compositions; and again the cost differences between the two groups were smaller ranging from -62 (matching "by hand") to 333 GBP (kernel matching).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Regression analyses and propensity scoring methods applied to the dataset may have increased the homogeneity and reduced the variance in the adjusted costs; that is, these methods have allowed the observed selection bias to be reduced. I believe that propensity scoring methods worked better for this dataset, because after matching the two groups were similar in terms of background characteristics and the adjusted cost differences were smaller.
authors.affiliation: Warwick Medical School,University of Warwick,Hema.Mistry@warwick.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Hema
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Mistry
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006330:Heart Defects, Congenital / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D008131:London; D011247:Pregnancy; D057216:Propensity Score; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000191:economics*; D015983:Selection Bias; D017216:Telemedicine / Q000191:economics*; D016216:Ultrasonography, Prenatal / Q000191:economics*