Bias-Adjusted Predictions of County-Level Vaccination Coverage from the COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey

Marissa B. Reitsma, Sherri Rose, Alex Reinhart, Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert and Joshua A. Salomon
Additional contact information
Marissa B. Reitsma: Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Sherri Rose: Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Alex Reinhart: Department of Statistics & Data Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert: Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Joshua A. Salomon: Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2024, vol. 44, issue 2, 175-188

Abstract: Background The potential for selection bias in nonrepresentative, large-scale, low-cost survey data can limit their utility for population health measurement and public health decision making. We developed an approach to bias adjust county-level COVID-19 vaccination coverage predictions from the large-scale US COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey. Design We developed a multistep regression framework to adjust for selection bias in predicted county-level vaccination coverage plateaus. Our approach included poststratification to the American Community Survey, adjusting for differences in observed covariates, and secondary normalization to an unbiased reference indicator. As a case study, we prospectively applied this framework to predict county-level long-run vaccination coverage among children ages 5 to 11 y. We evaluated our approach against an interim observed measure of 3-mo coverage for children ages 5 to 11 y and used long-term coverage estimates to monitor equity in the pace of vaccination scale up. Results Our predictions suggested a low ceiling on long-term national vaccination coverage (46%), detected substantial geographic heterogeneity (ranging from 11% to 91% across counties in the United States), and highlighted widespread disparities in the pace of scale up in the 3 mo following Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccination for 5- to 11-y-olds. Limitations We relied on historical relationships between vaccination hesitancy and observed coverage, which may not capture rapid changes in the COVID-19 policy and epidemiologic landscape. Conclusions Our analysis demonstrates an approach to leverage differing strengths of multiple sources of information to produce estimates on the time scale and geographic scale necessary for proactive decision making. Implications Designing integrated health measurement systems that combine sources with different advantages across the spectrum of timeliness, spatial resolution, and representativeness can maximize the benefits of data collection relative to costs. Highlights The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed massive survey data collection efforts that prioritized timeliness and sample size over population representativeness. The potential for selection bias in these large-scale, low-cost, nonrepresentative data has led to questions about their utility for population health measurement. We developed a multistep regression framework to bias adjust county-level vaccination coverage predictions from the largest public health survey conducted in the United States to date: the US COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey. Our study demonstrates the value of leveraging differing strengths of multiple data sources to generate estimates on the time scale and geographic scale necessary for proactive public health decision making.

Keywords: COVID-19 vaccination; online survey data; population health measurement; heterogeneity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231218024 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:175-188

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231218024

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().