  Imbalances in covariates between treatment groups are frequent in
observational studies and can lead to biased comparisons. Various adjustment
methods can be employed to correct these biases in the context of multi-level
treatments ($>$ 2). However, analytical challenges, such as positivity
violations and incorrect model specification, may affect their ability to yield
unbiased estimates. Adjustment methods that present the best potential to deal
with those challenges were identified: the overlap weights, augmented overlap
weights, bias-corrected matching and targeted maximum likelihood. A simple
variance estimator for the overlap weight estimators that can naturally be
combined with machine learning algorithms is proposed. In a simulation study,
we investigated the empirical performance of these methods as well as those of
simpler alternatives, standardization, inverse probability weighting and
matching. Our proposed variance estimator performed well, even at a sample size
of 500. Adjustment methods that included an outcome modeling component
performed better than those that only modeled the treatment mechanism.
Additionally, a machine learning implementation was observed to efficiently
compensate for the unknown model specification for the former methods, but not
the latter. Based on these results, the wildfire data were analyzed using the
augmented overlap weight estimator. With respect to effectiveness of alternate
fire-suppression interventions, the results were counter-intuitive, indeed the
opposite of what would be expected on subject-matter grounds. This suggests the
presence in the data of unmeasured confounding bias.
