The Impact of Public Health Events on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy on Chinese Social Media: National Infoveillance Study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to every country worldwide. A call for global vaccination for COVID-19 plays a pivotal role in the fight against this virus. With the development of COVID-19 vaccines, public willingness to get vaccinated has become an important public health concern, considering the vaccine hesitancy observed worldwide. Social media is powerful in monitoring public attitudes and assess the dissemination, which would provide valuable information for policy makers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the responses of vaccine positivity on social media when major public events (major outbreaks) or major adverse events related to vaccination (COVID-19 or other similar vaccines) were reported. METHODS: A total of 340,783 vaccine-related posts were captured with the poster's information on Weibo, the largest social platform in China. After data cleaning, 156,223 posts were included in the subsequent analysis. Using pandas and SnowNLP Python libraries, posts were classified into 2 categories, positive and negative. After model training and sentiment analysis, the proportion of positive posts was computed to measure the public positivity toward the COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: The positivity toward COVID-19 vaccines in China tends to fluctuate over time in the range of 45.7% to 77.0% and is intuitively correlated with public health events. In terms of gender, males were more positive (70.0% of the time) than females. In terms of region, when regional epidemics arose, not only the region with the epidemic and surrounding regions but also the whole country showed more positive attitudes to varying degrees. When the epidemic subsided temporarily, positivity decreased with varying degrees in each region. CONCLUSIONS: In China, public positivity toward COVID-19 vaccines fluctuates over time and a regional epidemic or news on social media may cause significant variations in willingness to accept a vaccine. Furthermore, public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination vary from gender and region. It is crucial for policy makers to adjust their policies through the use of positive incentives with prompt responses to pandemic-related news to promote vaccination acceptance.

Preferences for Artificial Intelligence Clinicians Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Discrete Choice Experiment and Propensity Score Matching Study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) methods can potentially be used to relieve the pressure that the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted on public health. In cases of medical resource shortages caused by the pandemic, changes in people's preferences for AI clinicians and traditional clinicians are worth exploring. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify and compare people's preferences for AI clinicians and traditional clinicians before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess whether people's preferences were affected by the pressure of pandemic. METHODS: We used the propensity score matching method to match two different groups of respondents with similar demographic characteristics. Respondents were recruited in 2017 and 2020. A total of 2048 respondents (2017: n=1520; 2020: n=528) completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Multinomial logit models and latent class models were used to assess people's preferences for different diagnosis methods. RESULTS: In total, 84.7% (1115/1317) of respondents in the 2017 group and 91.3% (482/528) of respondents in the 2020 group were confident that AI diagnosis methods would outperform human clinician diagnosis methods in the future. Both groups of matched respondents believed that the most important attribute of diagnosis was accuracy, and they preferred to receive combined diagnoses from both AI and human clinicians (2017: odds ratio [OR] 1.645, 95% CI 1.535-1.763; P<.001; 2020: OR 1.513, 95% CI 1.413-1.621; P<.001; reference: clinician diagnoses). The latent class model identified three classes with different attribute priorities. In class 1, preferences for combined diagnoses and accuracy remained constant in 2017 and 2020, and high accuracy (eg, 100% accuracy in 2017: OR 1.357, 95% CI 1.164-1.581) was preferred. In class 2, the matched data from 2017 were similar to those from 2020; combined diagnoses from both AI and human clinicians (2017: OR 1.204, 95% CI 1.039-1.394; P=.011; 2020: OR 2.009, 95% CI 1.826-2.211; P<.001; reference: clinician diagnoses) and an outpatient waiting time of 20 minutes (2017: OR 1.349, 95% CI 1.065-1.708; P<.001; 2020: OR 1.488, 95% CI 1.287-1.721; P<.001; reference: 0 minutes) were consistently preferred. In class 3, the respondents in the 2017 and 2020 groups preferred different diagnosis methods; respondents in the 2017 group preferred clinician diagnoses, whereas respondents in the 2020 group preferred AI diagnoses. In the latent class, which was stratified according to sex, all male and female respondents in the 2017 and 2020 groups believed that accuracy was the most important attribute of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals' preferences for receiving clinical diagnoses from AI and human clinicians were generally unaffected by the pandemic. Respondents believed that accuracy and expense were the most important attributes of diagnosis. These findings can be used to guide policies that are relevant to the development of AI-based health care.