ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Predict Health Belief Model and COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Using Survey Text from US Nurses.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Large Language Models to Assess Burnout Among Health Care Workers in the Context of COVID-19 Vaccine Decisions and Health Beliefs: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR nursing · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-, organoid-, and organ-on-chip-powered models to improve pre-clinical animal testing of vaccines and immunotherapeutics: potential, progress, and challenges.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Review
- Harnessing artificial intelligence and digital technology for enhancing routine immunization among zero-dose children.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated how artificial intelligence (AI) reveals factors shaping COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers by examining their open-text comments. We conducted a longitudinal survey starting in Spring of 2020 with 38,788 current and former female nurses in three national cohorts to assess how the pandemic has affected their livelihood. In January and March-April 2021 surveys, participants were invited to contribute open-text comments and answer specific questions about COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A closed-ended question in the survey identified vaccine-hesitant (VH) participants who either had no intention or were unsure of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. We collected 1970 comments from VH participants and trained two machine learning (ML) algorithms to identify behavioral factors related to VH. The first predictive model classified each comment into one of three health belief model (HBM) constructs (barriers, severity, and susceptibility) related to adopting disease prevention activities. The second predictive model used the words in January comments to predict the vaccine status of VH in March-April 2021; vaccine status was correctly predicted 89% of the time. Our results showed that 35% of VH participants cited barriers, 17% severity, and 7% susceptibility to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Out of the HBM constructs, the VH participants citing a barrier, such as allergic reactions and side effects, had the most associated change in vaccine status from VH to later receiving a vaccine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.