Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090092›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

Measuring vaccination coverage and concerns of vaccine holdouts from web search logs.

Serina Chang, Adam Fourney, Eric Horvitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Serina ChangDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Adam FourneyMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Eric HorvitzMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA. horvitz@microsoft.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To design effective vaccine policies, policymakers need detailed data about who has been vaccinated, who is holding out, and why. However, existing data in the US are insufficient: reported vaccination rates are often delayed or not granular enough, and surveys of vaccine hesitancy are limited by high-level questions and self-report biases. Here we show how search engine logs and machine learning can help to fill these gaps, using anonymized Bing data from February to August 2021. First, we develop a vaccine intent classifier that accurately detects when a user is seeking the COVID-19 vaccine on Bing. Our classifier demonstrates strong agreement with CDC vaccination rates, while preceding CDC reporting by 1-2 weeks, and estimates more granular ZIP-level rates, revealing local heterogeneity in vaccine seeking. To study vaccine hesitancy, we use our classifier to identify two groups, vaccine early adopters and vaccine holdouts. We find that holdouts, compared to early adopters matched on covariates, are 67% likelier to click on untrusted news sites, and are much more concerned about vaccine requirements, development, and vaccine myths. Even within holdouts, clusters emerge with different concerns and openness to the vaccine. Finally, we explore the temporal dynamics of vaccine concerns and vaccine seeking, and find that key indicators predict when individuals convert from holding out to seeking the vaccine.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesVaccination CoverageVaccination HesitancyHumansInternetMachine LearningSARS-CoV-2Search EngineUnited StatesVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID39090092
PMCPMC11294546

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.