RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The role of vaccine hesitancy on influenza vaccination is not clearly understood. Low influenza vaccination coverage in U.S. adults suggests that a multitude of factors may be responsible for under-vaccination or non-vaccination including vaccine hesitancy. Understanding the role of influenza vaccination hesitancy is important for targeted messaging and intervention to increase influenza vaccine confidence and uptake. The objective of this study was to quantify the prevalence of adult influenza vaccination hesitancy (IVH) and examine association of IVH beliefs with sociodemographic factors and early-season influenza vaccination. METHODS: A four-question validated IVH module was included in the 2018 National Internet Flu Survey. Weighted proportions and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify correlates of IVH beliefs. RESULTS: Overall, 36.9% of adults were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination; 18.6% expressed concerns about vaccination side effects; 14.8% personally knew someone with serious side effects; and 35.6% reported that their healthcare provider was not the most trusted source of information about influenza vaccinations. Influenza vaccination ranged from 15.3 to 45.2 percentage points lower among adults self-reporting any of the four IVH beliefs. Being female, age 18-49 years, non-Hispanic Black, having high school or lower education, being employed, and not having primary care medical home were associated with hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: Among the four IVH beliefs studied, being hesitant to receiving influenza vaccination followed by mistrust of healthcare providers were identified as the most influential hesitancy beliefs. Two in five adults in the United States were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination, and hesitancy was negatively associated with vaccination. This information may assist with targeted interventions, personalized to the individual, to reduce hesitancy and thus improve influenza vaccination acceptance.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Vacilación a la Vacunación , Prevalencia , Vacunación , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en SaludRESUMEN
Although polling is not irredeemably broken, changes in technology and society create challenges that, if not addressed well, can threaten the quality of election polls and other important surveys on topics such as the economy. This essay describes some of these challenges and recommends remediations to protect the integrity of all kinds of survey research, including election polls. These 12 recommendations specify ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses. Many of these recommendations align practice with the scientific norms of transparency, clarity, and self-correction. The transparency recommendations focus on improving disclosure of factors that affect the nature and quality of survey data. The clarity recommendations call for more precise use of terms such as "representative sample" and clear description of survey attributes that can affect accuracy. The recommendation about correcting the record urges the creation of a publicly available, professionally curated archive of identified technical problems and their remedies. The paper also calls for development of better benchmarks and for additional research on the effects of panel conditioning. Finally, the authors suggest ways to help people who want to use or learn from survey research understand the strengths and limitations of surveys and distinguish legitimate and problematic uses of these methods.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Annual vaccination is the most effective strategy for preventing influenza. We assessed trends and demographic and access-to-care characteristics associated with place of vaccination in recent years. METHODS: Data from the 2014-2018 National Internet Flu Survey were analyzed to assess trends in place of early-season influenza vaccination during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify factors independently associated with vaccination settings in the 2018-19 season. RESULTS: Among vaccinated adults, the proportion vaccinated in medical (range: 49%-53%) versus nonmedical settings (range: 47%-51%) during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons were similar. Among adults aged ≥18 years vaccinated early in the 2018-19 influenza season, a doctor's office was the most common place (34.4%), followed by pharmacies or stores (32.3%), and workplaces (15.0%). Characteristics significantly associated with an increased likelihood of receipt of vaccination in nonmedical settings among adults included household income ≥$50,000, having no doctor visits since July 1, 2018, or having a doctor visit but not receiving an influenza vaccination recommendation from the medical professional. CONCLUSIONS: Place of early-season influenza vaccination among adults who reported receiving influenza vaccination was stable over 5 recent seasons. Both medical and nonmedical settings were important places for influenza vaccination. Increasing access to vaccination services in medical and nonmedical settings should be considered as an important strategy for improving vaccination coverage.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Farmacias , Adolescente , Adulto , Humanos , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Estaciones del Año , Vacunación , Cobertura de VacunaciónRESUMEN
Researchers strive to design and implement high-quality surveys to maximize the utility of the data collected. The definitions of quality and usefulness, however, vary from survey to survey and depend on the analytic needs. Survey teams must evaluate the trade-offs of various decisions, such as when results are needed and their required level of precision, in addition to practical constraints like budget, before finalizing the design. Characteristics within the concept of fit for purpose (FfP) can provide the framework for considering the trade-offs. Furthermore, this tool can enable an evaluation of quality for the resulting estimates. Implementation of a FfP framework in this context, however, is not straightforward. In this article, we provide the reader with a glimpse of a FfP framework in action for obtaining estimates on early season influenza vaccination coverage estimates and on knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and barriers related to influenza and influenza prevention among civilian noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 years and older in the United States. The result is the National Internet Flu Survey (NIFS), an annual, two-week internet survey sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition to critical design decisions, we use the established NIFS FfP framework to discuss the quality of the NIFS in meeting the intended objectives. We highlight aspects that work well and other survey traits requiring further evaluation. Differences found in comparing the NIFS to the National Flu Survey, the National Health Interview Survey, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are discussed via their respective FfP characteristics. The findings presented here highlight the importance of the FfP framework for designing surveys, defining data quality, and providing a set a metrics used to advertise the intended use of the survey data and results.
RESUMEN
Previous research has shown that increasing the size of incentives can increase response rates for probability-based, cross-sectional surveys. However, the effects of incentives on web panels have not been extensively studied. We sought to answer the question: What is the effect of larger, postpaid incentives on (1) response, (2) data quality, and (3) nonresponse bias for individuals in a web panel? We analyzed data from the 2015 and 2016 National Internet Flu Survey, a survey that uses the GfK KnowledgePanel® as its sampling frame. We compare panel members who received a postpaid, standard 1,000-point (the equivalent of US$1) incentive in 2015 to panelists who received a larger, 5,000-point (the equivalent of US$5) incentive in 2016. We found that larger incentives were associated with increased interview completion rates with minimal impact on data quality or bias.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination has been recommended for all persons aged ≥6â¯months since 2010. METHODS: Data from the 2016 National Internet Flu Survey were analyzed to assess provider vaccination recommendations and early influenza vaccination during the 2016-17 season among adults aged ≥18â¯years. Predictive marginals from a multivariable logistic regression model were used to identify factors independently associated with early vaccine uptake by provider vaccination recommendation status. RESULTS: Overall, 24.0% visited a provider who both recommended and offered influenza vaccination, 9.0% visited a provider who only recommended but did not offer, 25.1% visited a provider who neither recommended nor offered, and 41.9% did not visit a doctor from July 1 through date of interview. Adults who reported that a provider both recommended and offered vaccine had significantly higher vaccination coverage (66.6%) compared with those who reported that a provider only recommended but did not offer (48.4%), those who neither received recommendation nor offer (32.0%), and those who did not visit a doctor during the vaccination period (28.8%). Results of multivariable logistic regression indicated that having received a provider recommendation, with or without an offer for vaccination, was significantly associated with higher vaccination coverage after controlling for demographic and access-to-care factors. CONCLUSIONS: Provider recommendation was significantly associated with influenza vaccination. However, overall, 67.0% of adults did not visit a doctor during the vaccination period or did visit a doctor but did not receive a provider recommendation. Evidence-based strategies such as client reminder/recall, standing orders, provider reminders, or health systems interventions in combination should be undertaken to improve provider recommendation and influenza vaccination coverage. Other factors significantly associated with a higher level of influenza vaccination included age ≥50â¯years, being Hispanic, having a college or higher education, having a usual place for medical care, and having public health insurance.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza/inmunología , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Vacunación , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Vigilancia de la Población , Factores Socioeconómicos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Cobertura de Vacunación , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends all persons aged ≥6â¯months get vaccinated for influenza annually, placing particular emphasis on persons who are at increased risk for influenza-related complications and persons living with or caring for them. METHODS: Data from the 2016 National Internet Flu Survey (NIFS), a nationally representative, probability-based Internet panel survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged ≥18â¯years, was used to compare influenza vaccination coverage among adults who live with household members at high-risk for complications from influenza with those who do not. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the difference in the adjusted vaccination coverage prevalence between persons living with and without high-risk household members. RESULTS: From the 2016 NIFS (nâ¯=â¯4,113), we estimated that 29.2% of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults had at least one household member at increased risk for influenza-related complications. Unadjusted influenza vaccination coverage was significantly higher for adults with a high-risk household member compared with those without (46.7% vs 38.6%, respectively). After adjustment for demographic and access-to-care factors, adults with high-risk household members were more likely to be vaccinated than those without (adjusted prevalence differenceâ¯=â¯5.3 [0.3, 10.3]). Among vaccinated respondents with high-risk household members, 88.7% reported that protection of their family and close contacts was one of the reasons they were vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of adults living with someone at increased risk of complications from influenza did not report receiving an influenza vaccination. Vaccination reminder/recall for persons at increased risk should include reminders for their household contacts.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/complicaciones , Cobertura de Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Monitoreo Epidemiológico , Composición Familiar , Femenino , Humanos , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo , Estaciones del Año , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The objective of the authors' analysis was to investigate the determinants of dental care visits among young, low-income African-American children. METHODS: Trained researchers interviewed a representative sample of low-income black families (caregivers and children aged 0 through 5 years) in Detroit to assess their dental visit history, dental insurance status and oral health behaviors. Dental examinations were conducted using the International Caries Diagnosis Assessment System (ICDAS). Of the 1,021 families who completed an interview and examination, a subset of the 552 children aged 3 to 5 years (and their primary caregivers) was the focus of this analysis. RESULTS: Children with private dental insurance had four times higher odds of having visited a dentist compared with those who had no dental insurance, and the odds for children receiving Medicaid were about 1.5 times higher. A child's age and a caregiver's educational attainment were positive and significant determinants of child dental visits. Caregivers who visited a dentist for preventive reasons were five times more likely to have taken their children to visit the dentist. Visiting a dentist was associated with an increased mean number of filled or missing tooth surfaces, but it was not significantly associated with the mean number of untreated decayed teeth. CONCLUSION: Children's dental insurance status was a significant determinant of their having visited a dentist. Even after the authors accounted for insurance status and other risk indicators, they found that children of caregivers who reported visiting a dentist for preventive care had a higher number of dental care visits. Determinants of caregivers' preventive dental visits must be identified and encouraged to improve the percentage of low-income children who visit dentists.
Asunto(s)
Negro o Afroamericano , Atención Dental para Niños/estadística & datos numéricos , Visita a Consultorio Médico/estadística & datos numéricos , Pobreza/estadística & datos numéricos , Preescolar , Métodos Epidemiológicos , Femenino , Humanos , Seguro Odontológico/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Michigan , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
As address-based sampling becomes increasingly popular for multimode surveys, researchers continue to refine data-collection best practices. While much work has been conducted to improve efficiency within a given mode, additional research is needed on how multimode designs can be optimized across modes. Previous research has not evaluated the consequences of mode sequencing on multimode mail and phone surveys, nor has significant research been conducted to evaluate mode sequencing on a variety of indicators beyond response rates. We conducted an experiment within the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health across the U.S. Risk Factor Survey (REACH U.S.) to evaluate two multimode case-flow designs: (1) phone followed by mail (phone-first) and (2) mail followed by phone (mail-first). We compared response rates, cost, timeliness, and data quality to identify differences across case-flow design. Because surveys often differ on the rarity of the target population, we also examined whether changes in the eligibility rate altered the choice of optimal case flow. Our results suggested that, on most metrics, the mail-first design was superior to the phone-first design. Compared with phone-first, mail-first achieved a higher yield rate at a lower cost with equivalent data quality. While the phone-first design initially achieved more interviews compared to the mail-first design, over time the mail-first design surpassed it and obtained the greatest number of interviews.