Sources of selection bias in evaluating social programs: An interpretation of conventional measures and evidence on the effectiveness of matching as a program evaluation method

This paper decomposes the conventional measure of selection bias in observational studies into three components. The first two components are due to differences in the distributions of characteristics between participant and nonparticipant (comparison) group members: the first arises from differences in the supports, and the second from differences in densities over the region of common support. The third component arises from selection bias precisely defined. Using data from a recent social experiment, we find that the component due to selection bias, precisely defined, is smaller than the first two components. However, selection bias still represents a substantial fraction of the experimental impact estimate. The empirical performance of matching methods of program evaluation is also examined. We find that matching based on the propensity score eliminates some but not all of the measured selection bias, with the remaining bias still a substantial fraction of the estimated impact. We find that the support of the distribution of propensity scores for the comparison group is typically only a small portion of the support for the participant group. For values outside the common support, it is impossible to reliably estimate the effect of program participation using matching methods. If the impact of participation depends on the propensity score, as we find in our data, the failure of the common support condition severely limits matching compared with random assignment as an evaluation estimator.

Information needs of rural health professionals: a review of the literature

This review analyzes the existing research on the information needs of rural health professionals and relates it to the broader information-needs literature to establish whether the information needs of rural health professionals differ from those of other health professionals. The analysis of these studies indicates that rural health practitioners appear to have the same basic needs for patient-care information as their urban counterparts, and that both groups rely on colleagues and personal libraries as their main sources of information. Rural practitioners, however, tend to make less use of journals and online databases and ask fewer clinical questions; a difference that correlates with geographic and demographic factors. Rural practitioners experience pronounced barriers to information access including lack of time, isolation, inadequate library access, lack of equipment, lack of skills, costs, and inadequate Internet infrastructure. Outreach efforts to this group of underserved health professionals must be sustained to achieve equity in information access and to change information-seeking behaviors.