在线调查预测COVID-19摄入和需求的准确性:一项队列研究调查了13个国家从2020年到2022年的疫苗情绪和转换

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Zachary D.V. Abel , Laurence S.J. Roope , Mara Violato , Philip M. Clarke
{"title":"在线调查预测COVID-19摄入和需求的准确性:一项队列研究调查了13个国家从2020年到2022年的疫苗情绪和转换","authors":"Zachary D.V. Abel ,&nbsp;Laurence S.J. Roope ,&nbsp;Mara Violato ,&nbsp;Philip M. Clarke","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>During pandemic conditions, efficient use of resources is essential, but vaccine hesitancy threatens to render vaccine deployment ineffective and inefficient. This study investigated the sensitivity and specificity of a straightforward ex-ante online survey question in predicting ex-post vaccine uptake, and the sociodemographic characteristics associated with individual changes (e.g., false positive or negative responses) in vaccine preferences. We conducted a pooled analysis on stated vaccine preferences and self-reported uptake of a convenience sample of 5213 individuals who were sampled in 13 countries in 2020/21 and 2022. We found online survey response of vaccine intention to be a strong determinant of vaccine uptake. The survey sensitivity was 80.5 %, while specificity was 51.8 %. Though we found evidence of stronger consistency between ex-ante intention and ex-post action in university educated respondents, and weaker consistency amongst those with right leaning political tendencies, further work is required to generalize these results by using representative datasets within each country. In situations where health technologies need to be rolled out urgently, simple and rapid surveys linked to individual health profiles have potential to increase the speed and efficiency of deployment (e.g., Personal Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA) in Australia), though low specificity threatens to undermine efficiency gains and sensitivity requirements in risk-averse medical decision making settings may be beyond the capabilities of simple surveys.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"62 ","pages":"Article 127450"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of online surveys in predicting COVID-19 uptake and demand: A cohort study investigating vaccine sentiments and switching in 13 countries from 2020 to 2022\",\"authors\":\"Zachary D.V. Abel ,&nbsp;Laurence S.J. Roope ,&nbsp;Mara Violato ,&nbsp;Philip M. Clarke\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127450\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>During pandemic conditions, efficient use of resources is essential, but vaccine hesitancy threatens to render vaccine deployment ineffective and inefficient. This study investigated the sensitivity and specificity of a straightforward ex-ante online survey question in predicting ex-post vaccine uptake, and the sociodemographic characteristics associated with individual changes (e.g., false positive or negative responses) in vaccine preferences. We conducted a pooled analysis on stated vaccine preferences and self-reported uptake of a convenience sample of 5213 individuals who were sampled in 13 countries in 2020/21 and 2022. We found online survey response of vaccine intention to be a strong determinant of vaccine uptake. The survey sensitivity was 80.5 %, while specificity was 51.8 %. Though we found evidence of stronger consistency between ex-ante intention and ex-post action in university educated respondents, and weaker consistency amongst those with right leaning political tendencies, further work is required to generalize these results by using representative datasets within each country. In situations where health technologies need to be rolled out urgently, simple and rapid surveys linked to individual health profiles have potential to increase the speed and efficiency of deployment (e.g., Personal Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA) in Australia), though low specificity threatens to undermine efficiency gains and sensitivity requirements in risk-averse medical decision making settings may be beyond the capabilities of simple surveys.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vaccine\",\"volume\":\"62 \",\"pages\":\"Article 127450\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vaccine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25007479\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25007479","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大流行期间,有效利用资源至关重要,但对疫苗的犹豫有可能使疫苗部署变得无效和低效。本研究调查了预测疫苗接种前后的直接在线调查问题的敏感性和特异性,以及与疫苗偏好的个体变化(例如假阳性或阴性反应)相关的社会人口学特征。我们对2020/21和2022年在13个国家抽取的5213人的便利样本进行了汇总分析,分析了陈述的疫苗偏好和自我报告的摄取情况。我们发现对疫苗意向的在线调查反应是疫苗摄取的一个强有力的决定因素。灵敏度为80.5%,特异度为51.8%。虽然我们发现在受过大学教育的受访者中,事前意图和事后行动之间的一致性更强,而在那些有右倾政治倾向的受访者中,一致性较弱,但需要进一步的工作来通过使用每个国家的代表性数据集来推广这些结果。在需要紧急推广卫生技术的情况下,与个人健康状况相关的简单和快速调查有可能提高部署的速度和效率(例如,澳大利亚的个人层面综合数据资产(PLIDA)),尽管在规避风险的医疗决策环境中,低特异性可能会破坏效率的提高,而简单调查可能无法满足敏感性要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of online surveys in predicting COVID-19 uptake and demand: A cohort study investigating vaccine sentiments and switching in 13 countries from 2020 to 2022
During pandemic conditions, efficient use of resources is essential, but vaccine hesitancy threatens to render vaccine deployment ineffective and inefficient. This study investigated the sensitivity and specificity of a straightforward ex-ante online survey question in predicting ex-post vaccine uptake, and the sociodemographic characteristics associated with individual changes (e.g., false positive or negative responses) in vaccine preferences. We conducted a pooled analysis on stated vaccine preferences and self-reported uptake of a convenience sample of 5213 individuals who were sampled in 13 countries in 2020/21 and 2022. We found online survey response of vaccine intention to be a strong determinant of vaccine uptake. The survey sensitivity was 80.5 %, while specificity was 51.8 %. Though we found evidence of stronger consistency between ex-ante intention and ex-post action in university educated respondents, and weaker consistency amongst those with right leaning political tendencies, further work is required to generalize these results by using representative datasets within each country. In situations where health technologies need to be rolled out urgently, simple and rapid surveys linked to individual health profiles have potential to increase the speed and efficiency of deployment (e.g., Personal Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA) in Australia), though low specificity threatens to undermine efficiency gains and sensitivity requirements in risk-averse medical decision making settings may be beyond the capabilities of simple surveys.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vaccine
Vaccine 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
992
审稿时长
131 days
期刊介绍: Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信