Abstract
Background Estimating the strength of causal effects is an important component of epidemiologic research, and causal graphs provide a key tool for optimizing the validity of these effect estimates. Although a large literature exists on the mathematical theory underlying the use of causal graphs, including directed acyclic graphs, to assess and describe causal assumptions, and translate these assumptions into appropriate statistical analysis plans, less literature exists to aid applied researchers in understanding how best to develop and use causal graphs in their research projects.
Objective We sought to understand this gap by surveying practicing epidemiologists and medical researchers on their knowledge, level of interest, attitudes, and practices towards the use of causal graphs in applied epidemiology and health research.
Methods We conducted an anonymous survey of self-identified epidemiology and health researchers via Twitter and via the Society of Epidemiologic Research membership listserv. The survey was conducted using Qualtrics and asked a series of multiple choice and open-ended questions about causal graphs.
Results In total, 439 responses were collected. Overall, a majority of participants reported being comfortable with using causal graphs and reported using them ‘sometimes’, ‘often’, or ‘always’ in their research. Almost three quarters of respondents had received formal training on causal graphs (typically causal directed acyclic graphs). Having received training appeared to improve comprehension of the underlying assumptions of causal graphs. Many of the respondents who did not use causal graphs reported lack of knowledge as a barrier to using DAGs in their research. Of the participants who did not use DAGs, many expressed that trainings, either in-person or online, would be useful resources to help them use causal graphs more often in their research.
Conclusion Causal graphs are of interest to epidemiologists and medical researchers, but there are several barriers to their uptake. Additional training and clearer guidance are needed. In addition, methodological developments regarding visualization of effect measure modification and interaction on causal graphs is needed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was partly funded by NICHD R21HD098733 (RBM, EJM). JPD was supported by grant K12-HL138039 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).
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
Footnotes
Revised results section for clarity; added recruitment tweets to supplement; updated tables and figures
Data Availability
The data will not be publicly available under the terms of the informed consent given by survey respondents.
