Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 2 Baseline characteristics of the analytic sample (N = 2674), before and after propensity score weighting on t1

From: Using predicted length of stay to define treatment and model costs in hospitalized adults with serious illness: an evaluation of palliative care

 

TG (n = 243)

CG (n = 2431)

Absolute Standardized difference

Unweighted

Weighted

Unweighted

Weighted

Age: over 75 years

490 (20%)

373 (15%)

490 (20%)

13%

< 0.01%

Gender: female

970 (40%)

970 (40%)

971 (40%)

< 0.5%

< 0.01%

Race: white

1341 (55%)

1123 (46%)

1341 (55%)

18%

< 0.01%

Surgery: first day

100 (4%)

374 (15%)

99 (4%)

39%

< 0.01%

ICU: first day

450 (19%)

882 (36%)

449 (18%)

41%

< 0.01%

Admitted: via ED

1371 (56%)

1180 (49%)

1371 (56%)

16%

< 0.01%

1ary dx: Solid tumor

1130 (47%)

480 (20%)

1131 (47%)

59%

< 0.01%

1ary dx: haematological cancer

10 (<0.5%)

58 (2%)

10 (<0.5%)

17%

< 0.01%

Charlson score: Mean (SD)

7.5 (2.4)

5.3 (2.9)

7.5 (2.9)

84%

< 0.01%

  1. TG Treatment group (t1 = 1), CG Comparison group (t1 = 0). Absolute standardized difference compares prevalence for binary variables, and mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, without taking into account sample size. It’s a standard measure of propensity score balance where < 10% is taken as a rule of thumb for acceptable balance [40].
Back to article page

Health Economics Review

ISSN: 2191-1991

Contact us