ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2026
Enhancing Estimation Precision in Sensitive Public Health Data: Implications for Evidence-Based Decision-Making.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionReliable estimation of sensitive public health outcomes, such as underreported COVID-19 cases and vaccine hesitancy, is frequently hindered by social stigma and nonresponse bias, particularly in culturally sensitive contexts like Pakistan. Traditional surveys often underestimate prevalence, limiting the effectiveness of public health interventions.
methodsMulti-stage stratified paired response frameworks (MSPRFs) incorporating two and three-stage randomization with dual scrambling mechanisms under stratified simple random sampling were applied. A cross-sectional survey of 1,200 participants (600 urban, 600 rural) from Faisalabad, Lahore, Multan, and Rawalpindi (June-August 2021) was conducted using anonymous questionnaires to collect data on outbreak cases and vaccine hesitancy.
resultsThe MSPRFs demonstrated substantially enhanced estimation efficiency (PRE 290-399%) relative to conventional methods. MSPRF-I estimated COVID-19 prevalence at 16.8% (urban) and 20.8% (rural), compared with reported rates of 12.1% and 13.6%; MSPRF-II estimated 16.8% and 19.2% versus reported 12.6% and 14.6%. Vaccine hesitancy was estimated at 33.8% (MSPRF-I) and 29.5% (MSPRF-II), relative to 24.3% reported. Urban respondents exhibited higher reporting sensitivity ([Formula: see text]) than rural respondents ([Formula: see text]), indicating geographic disparities in disclosure behavior.
conclusionMSPRFs provide a robust, privacy-preserving methodology for accurately estimating underreported COVID-19 cases and vaccine hesitancy, supporting evidence-based public health decision-making. MSPRF-II offers marginally higher adjustment efficiency due to inclusion of a truthful-response component. These frameworks are appropriate for sensitive epidemiological surveys in contexts where conventional self-reporting underestimates prevalence.
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.