Abstract
Objectives Evaluating population health initiatives at the community level necessitates valid counterfactual communities, which includes having similar complexity with respect to population composition, healthcare access, and health determinants. Estimating appropriate county counterfactuals is challenging in states with large inter-county variation. We present and discuss an application of K-means cluster analysis for determining county-level counterfactuals in an evaluation of a county perinatal system of care for Medicaid-insured pregnant women.
Materials and Methods Counties were described using indicators from the American Community Survey, Area Health Resources Files, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute County Health Rankings, and vital records for Michigan Medicaid-insured births for the year intervention began (or the closest available year). We ran analyses of 1,000 iterations with random starting cluster values for each of a range of number of clusters from 3 to 10 and used standard variability and reliability measures to identify the optimal number of clusters.
Results One county was grouped with the intervention county in all solutions for all iterations and thus considered most valid for 1:1 population county comparisons. Two additional counties were frequently grouped with the intervention county. However, no county was ideal for all subpopulation analyses.
Practice Implications Although the K-means method was successful at identifying a comparison county, concerning intervention-comparison differences remained. This limitation of the method may be specific to this county and the constraints of a within-state study. This method could potentially be more useful when applied to other counties in and outside of Michigan.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [grant number R18-HS020208]; and the Spectrum Health-Michigan State University Alliance Corporation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of either funding organization.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Three of four data sources (the American Community Survey, the Area Health Resources Files, and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute County Health Rankings) are publicly available at the links below. The fourth was obtained under a data use agreement from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Health Services Data Warehouse; interested parties would need to contact MDHHS.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
