Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38315620›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024

Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Using a Small and Interpretable Set of Judgment and Demographic Variables: Cross-Sectional Cognitive Science Study.

Nicole L Vike, Sumra Bari, Leandros Stefanopoulos, Shamal Lalvani, Byoung Woo Kim, Nicos Maglaveras, Martin Block, Hans C Breiter, Aggelos K Katsaggelos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nicole L VikeDepartment of Computer Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8617-2377
Sumra BariDepartment of Computer Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2406-2463
Leandros Stefanopoulos *Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2682-5639
Shamal Lalvani *Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2677-8019
Byoung Woo Kim *Department of Computer Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7612-4833
Nicos MaglaverasSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-4919-0664
Martin BlockIntegrated Marketing Communications, Medill School, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-8601-1372
Hans C BreiterDepartment of Computer Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4385-2778
Aggelos K KatsaggelosDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4554-0070

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many chose to forgo vaccination, raising questions about the psychology underlying how judgment affects these choices. Research shows that reward and aversion judgments are important for vaccination choice; however, no studies have integrated such cognitive science with machine learning to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

objectiveThis study aims to determine the predictive power of a small but interpretable set of judgment variables using 3 machine learning algorithms to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake and interpret what profile of judgment variables was important for prediction.

methodsWe surveyed 3476 adults across the United States in December 2021. Participants answered demographic, COVID-19 vaccine uptake (ie, whether participants were fully vaccinated), and COVID-19 precaution questions. Participants also completed a picture-rating task using images from the International Affective Picture System. Images were rated on a Likert-type scale to calibrate the degree of liking and disliking. Ratings were computationally modeled using relative preference theory to produce a set of graphs for each participant (minimum R

resultsAge, income, marital status, employment status, ethnicity, educational level, and sex differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-square P<.001). Most judgment variables also differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum P<.05). A similar area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was achieved by the 3 machine learning frameworks, although random forest and logistic regression produced specificities between 30% and 38% (vs 74.2% for BRF), indicating a lower performance in predicting unvaccinated participants. BRF achieved high precision (87.8%) and AUROC (79%) with moderate to high accuracy (70.8%) and balanced recall (69.6%) and specificity (74.2%). It should be noted that, for BRF, the negative predictive value was <50% despite good specificity. For BRF and random forest, 63% to 75% of the feature importance came from the 15 judgment variables. Furthermore, age, income, and educational level mediated relationships between judgment variables and vaccine uptake.

conclusionsThe findings demonstrate the underlying importance of judgment variables for vaccine choice and uptake, suggesting that vaccine education and messaging might target varying judgment profiles to improve uptake. These methods could also be used to aid vaccine rollouts and health care preparedness by providing location-specific details (eg, identifying areas that may experience low vaccination and high hospitalization).

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultCognitive ScienceCross-Sectional StudiesEthnicityHumansJudgmentVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccinesaversionbalanced random forestbehavioral economicscognitive sciencejudgmentmachine learningmediationmobile phonemoderationrelative preference theoryrewardsmartphone

Identifiers

PMID38315620
PMCPMC10953811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.