The use of Internet panels to collect survey data is increasing because it is cost-effective, enables access to large and diverse samples quickly, takes less time than traditional methods to obtain data for analysis, and the standardization of the data collection process makes studies easy to replicate. A variety of probability-based panels have been created, including Telepanel/CentERpanel, Knowledge Networks (now GFK KnowledgePanel), the American Life Panel, the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences panel, and the Understanding America Study panel. Despite the advantage of having a known denominator (sampling frame), the probability-based Internet panels often have low recruitment participation rates, and some have argued that there is little practical difference between opting out of a probability sample and opting into a nonprobability (convenience) Internet panel. This article provides an overview of both probability-based and convenience panels, discussing potential benefits and cautions for each method, and summarizing the approaches used to weight panel respondents in order to better represent the underlying population. Challenges of using Internet panel data are discussed, including false answers, careless responses, giving the same answer repeatedly, getting multiple surveys from the same respondent, and panelists being members of multiple panels. More is to be learned about Internet panels generally and about Web-based data collection, as well as how to evaluate data collected using mobile devices and social-media platforms.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately impacted older individuals, those with lower educational attainment, and Black and Hispanic populations, yet vaccine hesitancy remains prevalent. Because widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is critical to end the pandemic, addressing vaccine hesitancy is an important public health priority. Between April 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, we have repeatedly surveyed a nationally representative online panel of adults and have tracked their stated likelihood of getting COVID-19 vaccinations. We present new evidence that in recent months disparities in self-reported likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination have narrowed by race/ethnicity, with an increasing proportion of Black individuals and Hispanic individuals indicating that they are likely to get a vaccine. At the same time, younger adults have progressively become less likely than older adults to state they will get a COVID-19 vaccine. Most vaccine-hesitant individuals are concerned about both vaccine efficacy and safety and do not trust the vaccine development or vaccine approval process. We conclude that outreach efforts to minority populations may be achieving their objectives in raising confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, but special outreach efforts are needed to address both vaccine hesitancy among younger adults and mistrust in the vaccine development and approval process.

Background

Researchers have implemented multiple approaches to increase data quality from existing web-based panels such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk).

Objective

This study extends prior work by examining improvements in data quality and effects on mean estimates of health status by excluding respondents who endorse 1 or both of 2 fake health conditions ("Syndomitis" and "Chekalism").

Methods

Survey data were collected in 2021 at baseline and 3 months later from MTurk study participants, aged 18 years or older, with an internet protocol address in the United States, and who had completed a minimum of 500 previous MTurk "human intelligence tasks." We included questions about demographic characteristics, health conditions (including the 2 fake conditions), and the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29+2 (version 2.1) preference-based score survey. The 3-month follow-up survey was only administered to those who reported having back pain and did not endorse a fake condition at baseline.

Results

In total, 15% (996/6832) of the sample endorsed at least 1 of the 2 fake conditions at baseline. Those who endorsed a fake condition at baseline were more likely to identify as male, non-White, younger, report more health conditions, and take longer to complete the survey than those who did not endorse a fake condition. They also had substantially lower internal consistency reliability on the PROMIS-29+2 scales than those who did not endorse a fake condition: physical function (0.69 vs 0.89), pain interference (0.80 vs 0.94), fatigue (0.80 vs 0.92), depression (0.78 vs 0.92), anxiety (0.78 vs 0.90), sleep disturbance (-0.27 vs 0.84), ability to participate in social roles and activities (0.77 vs 0.92), and cognitive function (0.65 vs 0.77). The lack of reliability of the sleep disturbance scale for those endorsing a fake condition was because it includes both positively and negatively worded items. Those who reported a fake condition reported significantly worse self-reported health scores (except for sleep disturbance) than those who did not endorse a fake condition. Excluding those who endorsed a fake condition improved the overall mean PROMIS-29+2 (version 2.1) T-scores by 1-2 points and the PROMIS preference-based score by 0.04. Although they did not endorse a fake condition at baseline, 6% (n=59) of them endorsed at least 1 of them on the 3-month survey and they had lower PROMIS-29+2 score internal consistency reliability and worse mean scores on the 3-month survey than those who did not report having a fake condition. Based on these results, we estimate that 25% (1708/6832) of the MTurk respondents provided careless or dishonest responses.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that asking about fake health conditions can help to screen out respondents who may be dishonest or careless. We recommend this approach be used routinely in samples of members of MTurk.

The success of personal non-pharmaceutical interventions as a public health strategy requires a high level of compliance from individuals in private social settings. Strategies to increase compliance in these hard-to-reach settings depend upon a comprehensive understanding of the patterns and predictors of protective social behavior. Social cognitive models of protective behavior emphasize the contribution of individual-level factors while social-ecological models emphasize the contribution of environmental factors. This study draws on 28 waves of survey data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America survey to measure patterns of adherence to two protective social behaviors-private social-distancing behavior and private masking behavior-during the COVID-19 pandemic and to assess the role individual and environmental factors play in predicting adherence. Results show that patterns of adherence fall into three categories marked by high, moderate, and low levels of adherence, with just under half of respondents exhibiting a high level of adherence. Health beliefs emerge as the single strongest predictor of adherence. All other environmental and individual-level predictors have relatively poor predictive power or primarily indirect effects.

High acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is instrumental to ending the pandemic. Vaccine acceptance by subgroups of the population depends on their trust in COVID-19 vaccines. We surveyed a probability-based internet panel of 7832 adults from December 23, 2020-January 19, 2021 about their likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine and the following domains of trust: an individual's generalized trust, trust in COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy and safety, trust in the governmental approval process and general vaccine development process for COVID-19 vaccines, trust in their physician about COVID-19, and trust in other sources about COVID-19. We included identified at-risk subgroups: healthcare workers, older adults (65-74-year-olds and ≥ 75-year-olds), frontline essential workers, other essential workers, and individuals with high-risk chronic conditions. Of 5979 respondents, only 57.4% said they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine. More hesitant respondents (p < 0.05) included: women, young adults (18-49 years), Blacks, individuals with lower education, those with lower income, and individuals without high-risk chronic conditions. Lack of trust in the vaccine approval and development processes explained most of the demographic variation in stated vaccination likelihood, while other domains of trust explained less variation. We conclude that hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines is high overall and among at-risk subgroups, and hesitancy is strongly tied to trust in the vaccine approval and development processes. Building trust is critical to ending the pandemic.

Background and objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures may have disrupted school-related supports and services important to children's wellbeing. However, we lack national data about US children's wellbeing and family priorities for school-related services. We sought to determine 1) children's social-emotional wellbeing and 2) needs and priorities for school-based services in the 2021-2022 school year among a US sample of parents of school-aged children.

Methods

In June 2021, we surveyed 1504 parents of children enrolling in grades K-12 in the 2021-2022 school year participating in the Understanding America Study, a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel of families completing regular internet-based surveys (Response rate to this survey was 79.2%). Parents completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and reported their needs for school-related services regarding "support getting healthcare", "mental wellness support", "food, housing, legal or transportation support", and "learning supports and enrichment." Weighted regressions examined associations among wellbeing, needs, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Results

Approximately one-quarter of children had deficits in hyperactivity (26.1%), one-third in peer problems (32.6%), and 40% in prosocial areas. Most parents (83.5%) reported a school-related need, with 77% reporting learning supports and enrichment needs and 57% reporting mental wellness needs. The highest priority needs were for tutoring, socialization, increased instructional time, coping with stress, and physical activity.

Conclusions

US school children have high social-emotional and school-related needs. Investments in schools are urgently needed, particularly for learning supports and mental wellness, to meet the high demand for services and parents' priorities to support child health and wellbeing.

Objectives

Assess the degree to which US parents are likely to have their children get coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and identify parental concerns about the vaccines.

Methods

In February 2021 to March 2021, we surveyed parent members of a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel of ∼9000 adults regarding their intent to have their children receive a COVID-19 vaccination, perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines for children, and trust in sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children. We used descriptive and multivariate analyses to evaluate parent-stated likelihood of having their children get a COVID-19 vaccine and to assess the association between likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination and child age, parent demographics, and parental perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines.

Results

Altogether, 1745 parents responded (87% of eligible parents, 3759 children). Likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination was as follows: very likely (28%), somewhat likely (18%), somewhat unlikely (9%), very unlikely (33%), and unsure (12%). The stated likelihood of child vaccination was greater among parents of older children (P < .001) as well as among parents who had a bachelor's degree or higher education (P < .001), had already received or were likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (P < .001), or had Democratic affiliation (P < .001); variations existed by race and ethnicity (P = .04). Parental concerns centered around vaccine safety and side effects. A key trusted source of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children was the child's doctor.

Conclusions

Less than one-half of US participants report that they are likely to have their child receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Pediatric health care providers have a major role in promoting and giving COVID-19 vaccination for children.