Look-alike modelling in violence-related research: a missing data approach

Theoretical framework

In theory, look-alike modelling is based on the principle that similar individuals have similar behaviours. While in economics this normally refers to consumption behaviour, for people experiencing violence it refers to their trajectories and help-seeking behaviours. Therefore, to explore similarities between individuals, one needs to look at socio-economic and demographic variables, as well as violence experience. Mathematically, in two different datasets A and B, there are a_ij and b_ij individual records. These records can be compared in multiple variables k to ascertain how similar their look-alike profiles are. Each component-wise or variable-wise comparison relies on a vector that effectively produces a comparison function looking at the values of the record component or variable k in the two records a_ij and b_ij. In order to approach this data integration problem as a missing data problem, one relies on a sequence of univariate imputation models, with fully conditional specifications of prediction equations. Formally, for imputation variables X₁, X₂, . . . , X_p and complete independent predictors C, so that: Where t are iterations that converge at t = T and φ_j are the corresponding model parameters prior [20]. In our study, we created the vector C_i,j based on the following variables: type of sexual violence experienced (type of SV), relationship to the perpetrator, health impact, employment status, housing tenure, number of dependants, relationship status (usually referred to as marital status in social research), ethnicity, age and gender. These variables were selected as they are considered to influence the journey of victim-survivors of sexual violence and their help-seeking behaviour.

Traditionally, multiple imputation (MI) is used to address missingness of data by generating plausible values derived from distributions and relationships among observed variables [21]. While MI has been widely used in statistical and economic analysis of clinical trials [22] and more recently social research [23], to our knowledge, it has not been used to produce a synthetic dataset. Our multiple imputation approach to data integration recognises that the reason for missing data may be different for each dataset A and B. This is particularly true in our empirical application, since we are using a population-level survey (CSEW) and administrative records from a victim support service (RCEW). Furthermore, while datasets A and B are completely independent in our case, the reasons for missingness may be correlated, as disclosing sexual abuse is still stigmatised in society [24–26]. Finally, our approach recognises that the variables or covariates used for imputation may have non-normal distributions [27, 28].

Procedurally, multiple imputation replaces each missing value with a set of plausible values. Following Bayesian rules, the imputed values are drawn based on the conditional distribution of the missing observations given the observed data, reflecting the uncertainty associated with the missing data itself and parameters estimated in the imputation model [29]. Mathematically, let f_ij represent the variable you are interested in imputing for the ith individual within the jth cluster. In this case, , the comparison function and D, the cluster-level vector of covariates, are the predictors of missingness in variable f at individual and cluster-levels respectively. Then, a MI model can be specified as: Where β and γ are the vectors of the regression coefficients corresponding to individual and cluster-level covariates. The model assumes that the error term (ε) is normally distributed with variance σ². The imputation procedure generates multiple values for each missing observation based on the distributions for β, γ and σ conditioned on observed data. By combining two datasets A and B, based on the vector C and using multiple imputation, we are applying a look-alike modelling approach that may enable imputation of partially and completely missing data into a complete combined synthetic dataset.

Datasets

The CSEW, previously known as the British Crime Survey, is a nationally representative face-to-face victimisation survey of about 35 thousand to 46 thousand respondents per survey wave, which started biannually from 1982 before becoming an annual survey from 2001[31]. The CSEW asks people aged 16 and over about their experience with household and personal crimes in the twelve months prior to the interview. Considering our focus on sexual violence, we only included individual level data from respondents who had reported being a victim-survivor of rape, attempted rape, wounding with sexual motive, and indecent assault. In order to include a sufficient number of incidents of sexual violence to do the data integration, we used CSEW data from 2001 to 2020.

The RCEW data comes from three RCCs in a region in eastern England and is based on routinely collected administrative data recorded in a centralised case management data system between April 2016 and March 2020. Information is self-reported by victim-survivors upon initial contact with RCEW, most commonly over the phone but sometimes online or face-to-face, and data are inputted to the RCEW database by frontline support workers. Rape Crisis centres collect individual level data for their service users in pre-determined coding categories based on a person-centred non-intrusive principle, which means frontline workers only ask questions that are appropriate, or rely on information victim-survivors choose to disclose [30]. Information collected typically includes socio-demographic and protected characteristics (gender, age, disability, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, religion, marital status, accommodation, employment, language, immigration status, socioeconomic status), experiences of sexual violence and abuse (SVA), victim-perpetrator relationship, impacts from experience of SVA, risk level, referral routes, engagement with different (statutory and non-statutory) services and contact with the criminal justice system. Data on experiences of SVA are collected in two main ways; information is gathered on the ‘presenting incident’ (the main experience of violence the victim-survivor is seeking support for at the time of initial contact with RCEW), and elsewhere in the database further details can be entered under ‘incident summary’ about separate ‘incidents’ or experiences of violence, if disclosed [30]. Most information is inputted into their case management system at the point of intake based on the victim-survivor’s report and, where necessary, the assessment of the support worker. However, further information on the abuse can be collected and recorded at any point during the support journey, as appropriate. Case management and criminal justice data are collected in separate parts of the system, however, data are recorded under a client identification number, making it possible to merge case management and criminal justice data.

Considering our focus on sexual violence, we selected respondents (CSEW) or service users (RCEW) who have reported being a victim-survivor of rape (including attempted) or another form sexual violence and abuse (which included indecent assault and wounding with sexual motive). We selected respondents/service users with no missing values on vector C variables, which led to a sample of 1,232 incidents from 1,111 individuals in the CSEW, and 6,102 referral cases from 5,333 individuals in RCEW. In RCEW data, it included data for individuals who accessed the service more than once.

The comparison vector (C) variables

As previously mentioned, we created the vector C_i,j based on the variables that were considered to influence victim-survivors’ journeys and help-seeking behaviour the most. Thus, we needed to harmonise the following variables across CSEW and RCEW data: type of sexual violence experienced, relationship to the perpetrator, health impact, employment status, housing tenure, number of dependants, relationship status, ethnicity, age and gender.

The type of sexual violence experienced in the CSEW was categorised into crime codes by professional coders based on respondents’ responses to survey questions and narrative description of the incident. The categories are aimed to align with Home Office categorisation. We selected the following reported offences: rape, serious wounding with sexual motive, other wounding with sexual motive, attempted rape, and indecent assault. We categorised these into rape (including attempted) or some other form of sexual violence. In the RCEW data, sexual violence was categorised based on the information recorded at intake under ‘presenting incident’ and ‘incident summary’. Once again, we categorised these into broader categories: rape (as an adult, including attempted rape); and some other form of sexual violence (including sexual assault, assault by penetration, voyeurism, sexual bullying, penetration by object, gang related sexual violence, forced sexual activity in public, exposed to sexual images, sexual harassment and sexual exploitation). Victim-survivors accessing RCEW services for other types of violence or abuse were excluded, including rape or sexual abuse during childhood.

For the variable victim-perpetrator relationship, respondents to CSEW were first asked whether they knew the perpetrator, and if so, what their relationship was at the time of the incident. The RCEW data recorded who the primary perpetrator was. This was categorised into domestic (such as [former] intimate partner or family member), acquaintances (including friends, colleagues), and strangers. If multiple perpetrators were mentioned, it was coded as the closer relationship (e.g. prioritising domestic over acquaintances).

The health impact of the incident was assessed in the CSEW by whether they were bruised, scratched, cut or injured in any way as a result of the incident. The health impact was measured in the RCEW data using information recorded under ‘incident impact’ and ‘impact summary’, for which we included physical health impacts of memory loss, physical injuries and body problems, gynaecological disorder, and sexually transmitted infection. While these do not match directly between the two datasets, we only included a binary in our empirical application for whether there was (yes/no) a health impact on the victim-survivor.

Relationship status was categorised into whether respondents were in a co-residential relationship (either married or cohabiting), single/non-resident partner/widowed, or separated or divorced in the CSEW and RCEW. Ethnicity was coded as White and non-White, as further differentiation led to too small numbers in some categories. However, we acknowledge that the ethnicity categorisation of White/non-White may be problematic and any conclusion in this respect, limited [32]. Employment status in both datasets was assessed by whether people were employed, unemployed, students, or outside the labour force (e.g. a homemaker, retired, or unable to work due to illness). Gender was asked as whether the respondent was male or female¹ in the CSEW. In RCEW data, more detailed responses are given, including transgender female and transgender male, which were recoded into men and women. Finally, age was measured numerically in both datasets and we included in our analyses people over the age of 16. Table S1 in the supporting information summarises how variables were harmonised.

Analytical Strategy

To test whether approaching look-alike modelling as a missing data problem was effective, we compared regression analyses for the two datasets (CSEW and RCEW) and the combined synthetic dataset, which imputed data based on the comparison vector. As a proof of concept, we tested the approach using variables of different types (binary and continuous) that are observed in both datasets. Formally, our approach had three steps. First, we specified the same linear (OLS) or logistic regression (as appropriate) for dataset A (RCEW) and dataset B (CSEW). We then assumed one variable was missing from the combined integrated synthetic dataset by generating a completely missing variable for dataset A, which we imputed, using multiple imputation with chained equations, based on the observed values for the combination vector in both datasets. This effectively imputed the (assumed) missing variable in dataset A based on the distribution and associations with other variables of the combination vector in dataset B.

We carried out this exercise for four variables, two that are very similarly measured – age (continuous) and gender (binary), one that is differently measured across datasets – health impact (binary), and lastly, we illustrated the potential of this method of combining data in a real-life application to a variable that only appears in one dataset (CSEW) – frequency of abuse (count). We acknowledge that the first two tests, using age and gender, are not particularly interesting from an analytical standpoint. Nonetheless, we wanted to start off with variables that were objectively measured as much as possible.

Profiles comparison of sexual violence victim-survivors in CSEW and RC

Before conducting our look-alike exercises, we compared the profiles of sexual violence victim-survivors in CSEW and RCEW datasets (Table 1). The table shows some meaningful differences between the individuals pertaining to each dataset. Particularly, only 32% of sexual violence victim-survivors in the CSEW had been victims of rape, compared to 71% in the RCEW data. Relationship to the perpetrator was more likely to be domestic in the RCEW data compared to the CSEW (48% vs 25%, respectively) and perpetrators were far more likely to be strangers or to be unknown in the CSEW (42%), compared to only 12% of records in the RCEW dataset.

Furthermore, the CSEW recorded a physical injury in 39% of incidents, while this appeared in only 6% of cases in the RCEW dataset, which might reflect the different measurements of physical health impact between these two data sources. Finally, there are some differences in relationship status and employment status, with more single or widowed people in RCEW data and more separated or divorced people in CSEW, and more unemployed people and students in RCEW when compared to CSEW.

Look-alike empirical application

Our first empirical application exercise pretended the variable age was missing from the combined dataset. Thus, we stipulated our comparison vector (C) as: Table 2 presents the results of a linear regression (OLS), looking at the associations between age as the dependent variable, and the independent variables for dataset A (RCEW), dataset B (CSEW) and the complete combined dataset inputting age based on our proposed approach. When comparing the associations with age between the original datasets, and the imputed synthetic dataset based on the variation observed in B, the results show that the effect sizes and direction for the imputed data reflects the results from the dataset used as the basis for imputation. For example, the type of SV was not associated with age in the original RCEW, but was in the CSEW. The imputed synthetic dataset reflects the CSEW dataset in that those who were victim-survivors of rape were younger on average. Reversely, while the perpetrator being an acquaintance compared to domestic was associated with younger people in RCEW, this was not the case for the CSEW, where no significant association was found, which was also the case in the imputed synthetic dataset. One coefficient was significantly related to age in both datasets, but not in the imputed version (stranger/unknown perpetrator). For all independent variables / controls, the standard errors were similar between the CSEW and the imputed synthetic dataset, which additional testing indicates is due to two opposing mechanisms which (partially) cancel each other out. That is, on the one hand, imputation may result in larger standard errors due to the uncertainty around the imputation; on the other hand, the bigger sample size of the imputation sample leads to smaller standard errors.

We then tested the approach on a binary variable, gender. For this, we stipulated that the comparison vector was specified as: Table 3 shows the results of logistic regressions looking at the associations between gender as a dependent variable and the independent variables for dataset A (RCEW), dataset B (CSEW) and the complete combined synthetic dataset. Similarly to what we saw in our analyses of age, the imputed dataset mimics the associations from the CSEW dataset. For example, men were less likely to experience rape than women, while stranger perpetrators where more strongly associated with male than female victim-survivors. Two important things stand out: Acquaintance (compared to domestic relationship) perpetrator was not associated with gender, nor was ‘other’ housing tenure (compared to homeowners) in the CSEW, but these do become significant in the imputed dataset. The latter is most likely due to the far higher prevalence of ‘other’ housing tenure in the RCEW dataset, making it more likely to reach statistical significance, while the former is likely due to the larger sample size of the imputed dataset compared to the original CSEW dataset.

We considered the consistencies across tables 2 and 3 as an indication that our proposed approach works for variables that are recorded similarly in the two datasets. We then extended our testing to an outcome measure which is not similarly recorded in CSEW and RCEW; health impact. For this, we specified the comparison vector as: Table 4 shows the results of logistic regressions looking at the associations between health impact for dataset A (RCEW), dataset B (CSEW) and the complete combined synthetic dataset. We acknowledge that this is a more meaningful regression specification than the previous two specified in the paper. However, since our approach is novel, we wanted to ensure that the approach worked for similarly recorded variables before testing for differently recorded ones. The results show the same as for the previous models, namely that the imputed dataset reflects the associations from the CSEW dataset in both magnitude, direction, and significance. This includes an association that was positive in the original RCEW dataset (dataset A), but negative in CSEW (dataset B), and thus are also negative in the imputed dataset, namely, whether the perpetrator was a stranger or unknown. In these models, the coefficients for single/widowed stand out, given the synthetic dataset presents a very similar association to that found in the RCEW dataset. This is again likely a result of a much higher prevalence of this group in the RCEW (and therefore in the synthetic dataset).

Finally, in order to achieve our goal of combining data in a real-life application and producing a complete integrated dataset, we inputted a variable that only appears in CSEW and is, therefore, completely missing in RCEW; frequency of abuse. In this case, the comparison vector is: The analyses estimating the number of sexual violence incidents or repetitions based on CSEW data reveals that rape (compared to other sexual violence) and incidents by acquaintances or strangers (compared to domestic perpetrators) are less likely to be repeated, and if repeated they are repeated fewer times. The imputed synthetic dataset reflects these associations. On the other hand, whilst in the CSEW, significant negative associations between sexual violence incidents and singles/widowed (versus married or cohabitors), non-White (compared to White) victim-survivors exist, these associations did not reach statistical significance in the imputed dataset. Lastly, while students did not have a higher number of sexual violence incidents compared to employed people in the CSEW, in the imputed synthetic dataset this was the case. This change in significance is likely due to the larger proportion of students in the RCEW (and therefore in the synthetic dataset).