Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42523203›Full record

ArticleACI open2025

Assessing a Digital Public Health Intervention: Survey Implementation and Analysis in Washington State Using an Address-Based Sample.

Adam S Elder, Andrea R Molino, Rebecca A Hills, Debra Revere, Chris Baumgartner, Bryant T Karras, Janet G Baseman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACI open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Adam S ElderDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Andrea R MolinoDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Rebecca A HillsDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Debra RevereDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Chris BaumgartnerDepartment of Health, Washington State, Tumwater, United States.
Bryant T KarrasDepartment of Health, Washington State, Tumwater, United States.
Janet G BasemanDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In November 2021, the Washington State Department of Health launched WA Verify, a quick-response (QR) code-based tool that allows users to share their coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine status using a mobile phone. Objectives: This study aimed to gather an unbiased sample of Washington residents to collect information about their experiences and opinions on digital public health interventions, with a particular focus on WA Verify. Materials and Methods: The WA Verify evaluation team designed and implemented a statewide survey using an address-based sample to assess respondents' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding COVID-19, WA Verify, and technology. To facilitate comparisons with known characteristics of the Washington State population, the survey included questions also found in state and national surveys and the U.S. Census. Weights based on demographic characteristics were developed to allow for weighted analyses in the future. Results: The unweighted demographic distribution of respondents mostly matched that of the Washington State population, with the largest discrepancy in education; 58.9% of respondents reported having a four-year degree or higher versus 37.3% of the state population. Across race, education level, age and gender, there were differences in reported experiences with and views on requirements to provide vaccination verification and awareness and use of WA Verify. Conclusion: Despite differences in experiences and views on WA Verify, there is broad interest in the tool, suggesting opportunities to expand its adoption. Data and information gathered with this survey, conducted using an address-based sample, provide a strong foundation for further analyses to inform public health interventions, particularly informatics-focused projects.

Indexed as

Electronic health records and systemsGeneral information systems and technologies in clinical settingsinformation assurancepublic healthsmart phonestatistical methods

Identifiers

PMID42523203
PMCPMC13393551

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.