Exploring Attitudes and Obstacles Around Digital Public Health Tools: Insights From a Statewide Cross-Sectional Survey on Washington's Vaccine Verification System.

Background: Development and use of digital public health tools surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among these tools, vaccine verification systems emerged as alternatives to paper vaccine records, aiming to help limit the spread of disease. In November 2021, the Washington State Department of Health launched "WA Verify," a QR code-based vaccine verification system built on the SMART Health Card framework, providing residents with a convenient way to store and share proof of vaccination digitally. However, WA Verify was developed and deployed before assessments and public input regarding potential adoption challenges-such as concerns about privacy, surveillance, data sharing, trust in the technology, and the managing organizations-could be completed.

Objective: This analysis used statewide survey data from Washington to identify and characterize barriers and facilitators to the adoption of WA Verify, and to understand how factors such as data privacy, security, attitudes toward public health policies and communication, and technological proficiency may influence acceptance and uptake of digital public health tools.

Methods: A cross-sectional statewide survey was distributed between September 2022 and January 2023 to a random sample of 5000 Washington households. Respondents were categorized into 3 groups based on their responses indicating WA Verify "users," "potential users," or "unlikely users." Comparisons were made between groups regarding experiences with and opinions on COVID-19 vaccine and test verification, public health policies, communication, digital tools, technological proficiency, sociodemographic characteristics, and health history. Poststratification weights were applied to reduce nonresponse bias.

Results: Of the 1401 respondents, 359 (25.6% unweighted, 25.8% weighted) were users, 662 (47.3% unweighted, 49.8% weighted) were potential users, and 380 (27.1% unweighted, 24.4% weighted) were unlikely users. All percentages reported are based on weighted data. Compared with users and potential users, unlikely users were more likely to oppose policies requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination or negative test results (users: 6.0%, potential users: 13.6%, unlikely users: 65.9%). Unlikely users were more likely to cite concerns about personal health data security and phone hacking or tracking, though these concerns were also notable among potential users and users. Users and potential users were more likely to perceive a digital vaccine verification system as convenient (users: 96.5%, potential users: 92.3%, unlikely users: 38.1%) and indicated openness to receiving relevant information from a range of sources. Unlikely users were more likely to report not owning a smartphone and demonstrated lower technological proficiency (users: 12.3%, potential users: 15.9%, unlikely users: 32.3%), indicating a technological divide between groups.

Conclusions: While nearly three-quarters of respondents had either already adopted or were willing to adopt a tool like WA Verify, concerns about data security, lower technological proficiency, and distrust of public health characterized those least likely to adopt such tools. Identifying barriers to adoption among "unlikely users" is essential for developing effective communication strategies-such as targeted marketing and community engagement-to improve adoption and ensure equitable access to public health technologies.