IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p175-188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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
    Delphi Group, 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
    Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Marissa B. Reitsma & Sherri Rose & Alex Reinhart & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Joshua A. Salomon, 2024. "Bias-Adjusted Predictions of County-Level Vaccination Coverage from the COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 175-188, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:175-188
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231218024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231218024
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231218024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael R. Elliott & William W. Davis, 2005. "Corrigendum: Obtaining cancer risk factor prevalence estimates in small areas: combining data from two surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 54(5), pages 958-958, November.
    2. Michael R. Elliott & William W. Davis, 2005. "Obtaining cancer risk factor prevalence estimates in small areas: combining data from two surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 54(3), pages 595-609, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giancarlo Manzi & David J. Spiegelhalter & Rebecca M. Turner & Julian Flowers & Simon G. Thompson, 2011. "Modelling bias in combining small area prevalence estimates from multiple surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(1), pages 31-50, January.
    2. Jae Kwang Kim & Zhonglei Wang & Zhengyuan Zhu & Nathan B. Cruze, 2018. "Combining Survey and Non-survey Data for Improved Sub-area Prediction Using a Multi-level Model," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 23(2), pages 175-189, June.
    3. Takis Merkouris, 2010. "Combining information from multiple surveys by using regression for efficient small domain estimation," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 72(1), pages 27-48, January.
    4. Rasner, Anika & Frick, Joachim R. & Grabka, Markus M., 2013. "Statistical Matching of Administrative and Survey Data: An Application to Wealth Inequality Analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 42(2), pages 192-224.
    5. Anika Rasner & Joachim R. Frick & Markus M. Grabka, 2013. "Statistical Matching of Administrative and Survey Data," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(2), pages 192-224, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:175-188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.