Search

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The National Center for Health Statistics' (NCHS) Research and Development Survey (RANDS) is a series of commercial panel surveys collected for methodological research purposes. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, NCHS expanded the use of RANDS to rapidly monitor aspects of the public health emergency. The RANDS during COVID-19 survey was designed to include COVID-19 related health outcome and cognitive probe questions. Rounds 1 and 2 were fielded June 9-July 6, 2020 and August 3-20, 2020 using the AmeriSpeak® Panel. Existing and new approaches were used to: 1) evaluate question interpretation and performance to improve future COVID-19 data collections and 2) to produce a set of experimental estimates for public release using weights which were calibrated to NCHS' National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to adjust for potential bias in the panel. Through the expansion of the RANDS platform and ongoing methodological research, NCHS reported timely information about COVID-19 in the United States and demonstrated the use of recruited panels for reporting national health statistics. This report describes the use of RANDS for reporting on the pandemic and the associated methodological survey design decisions including the adaptation of question evaluation approaches and calibration of panel weights.

Challenges in measuring early childhood development (ECD) at scale have been documented, yet little is known about the specific difficulties related to questionnaire design and question interpretation. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the challenges of measuring ECD at scale in the context of household surveys and to show how to overcome them. The paper uses examples from the cognitive interviewing exercises that were conducted as part of the methodological work to develop a measure of ECD outcomes, the ECDI2030. It describes the methodological work carried out to inform the selection and improvement of question items and survey implementation tools as a fundamental step to reduce and mitigate systematic measurement error and improve data quality. The project consisted of a total of five rounds of testing, comprising 191 one-on-one, in-depth cognitive interviews across six countries (Bulgaria, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Uganda, and the USA). Qualitative data analysis methods were used to determine matches and mismatches between intention of items and false positives or false negative answers among subgroups of respondents. Key themes emerged that could potentially lead to systematic measurement error in population-based surveys on ECD: (1) willingness of child to perform task versus ability of child to perform task; (2) performing task versus performing task correctly; (3) identifying letters or numbers versus recognizing letters or numbers; (4) consistently performing task versus correctly performing task; (5) applicability of skills being asked versus observability of skills being asked; and (6) language production versus language comprehension. Through an iterative process of testing and subsequent revision, improvements were made to item wording, response options, and interviewer training instructions. Given the difficulties inherent in population-level data collection in the context of global monitoring, this study's findings confirm the importance of cognitive testing as a crucial step in careful, culturally relevant, and sensitive questionnaire design and as a means to reduce response bias in cross-cultural contexts.