RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Are We There Yet? Big Surveys Significantly Overestimate COVID-19 Vaccination in the US
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.10.21258694
DO 10.1101/2021.06.10.21258694
A1 Bradley, Valerie C.
A1 Kuriwaki, Shiro
A1 Isakov, Michael
A1 Sejdinovic, Dino
A1 Meng, Xiao-Li
A1 Flaxman, Seth
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/03/2021.06.10.21258694.abstract
AB Accurate surveys are the primary tool for understanding public opinion towards and barriers preventing COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We compare three prominent surveys about vaccination in the US: Delphi-Facebook (n ≈ 250,000 per week), Census Household Pulse (n ≈ 75,000), and Axios-Ipsos (n ≈ 1,000). We find that the two larger surveys are biased compared to the benchmark from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and that their sample sizes lead to devastating overconfidence in those incorrect estimates. By April 26, 2021, Delphi-Facebook and Census Household Pulse estimated that at least 73% and 69% of US adults had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine, which was 16 and 12 percentage points higher, respectively, than the CDC’s estimate (57%). Moreover, estimates of vaccine hesitancy disagree significantly between surveys – we find that these differences cannot be explained entirely by Delphi-Facebook’s under-representation of racial minorities and non-college educated adults. These are examples of the Big Data Paradox1: when a confidence interval based on a large but biased sample exhibits both a seriously displaced center and a grossly underestimated width, thus leading us (confidently) away from the truth. With sufficient attention to quality control, small surveys like Axios-Ipsos can be far more reliable than large ones. We leverage a recently established data quality identity1 to quantify sources of the estimation errors and to conduct a scenario analysis for implications on vaccine willingness and hesitancy. Our study quantifies how bias in large samples can lead to overconfidence in incorrect inferences, which is particularly problematic in studies, like those examined here, that inform high-stakes public policy decisions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementVB is funded by the University of Oxford's Clarendon Fund and the EPSRC and MRC through the OxWaSP CDT programme (EP/L016710/1). SF acknowledges the support of the EPSRC (EP/V002910/1).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:According to HRA decision tools (http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/), our study is considered Research, and according to the NHS REC review tool (http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/ethics/), we do not need NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) review, as we only used (1) publicly available, (2) anonymized, and (3) aggregated data outside of clinical settings.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data is publicly available from the listed sources. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/axios-ipsos-coronavirus-index https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html https://cmu-delphi.github.io/delphi-epidata/symptom-survey/contingency-tables.html https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/datasets/2010-2019/state/detail/SCPRC-EST2019-18+POP-RES.csv https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-trends