Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 4, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Quantitative methods for descriptive intersectional analysis with binary health outcomes
Mayuri Mahendran1, Daniel Lizotte1,2, Greta R Bauer1
1Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
Abstract:
Intersectionality recognizes that in the context of sociohistorically shaped structural power relations, an individual's multiple social positions or identities (e.g., gender, ethnicity) can interact to affect health-related outcomes. Despite limited methodological guidance, intersectionality frameworks have increasingly been incorporated into epidemiological studies, both to describe health disparities and to examine their causes. This study aimed to advance methods in intersectional estimation of binary outcomes in descriptive health disparities research through evaluation of 7 potentially intersectional data analysis methods: cross-classification, regression with interactions, multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity (MAIHDA), and decision trees (CART, CTree, CHAID, random forest). Accuracy of estimated intersection-specific outcome prevalence was evaluated across 192 intersections using simulated data scenarios. For comparison we included a non-intersectional main effects regression. We additionally assessed variable selection performance amongst decision trees. Example analyses using National Health and Nutrition Examination Study data illustrated differences in results between methods. At larger sample sizes, all methods except for CART performed better than non-intersectional main effects regression. In smaller samples, MAIHDA was the most accurate method but showed no advantage over main effects regression, while random forest, cross-classification, and saturated regression were the least accurate, and CTree and CHAID performed moderately well. CART performed poorly for estimation and variable selection. Sensitivity analyses examining the bias-variance tradeoff suggest MAIHDA as the preferred unbiased method for accurate estimation of high-dimensional intersections at smaller sample sizes. Larger sample sizes are more imperative for other methods. Results support the adoption of an intersectional approach to descriptive epidemiology.
More Related Videos
07:22Glycemic Impact on Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms on Physical, Radiographic, and Inflammatory Markers among Individuals Aged 50 and Over with Diabetes
Published on: March 7, 2025
08:13Using the Race Model Inequality to Quantify Behavioral Multisensory Integration Effects
Published on: May 10, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
Overview of Biostatistics in Health Sciences