Understanding Health Communication Through Google Trends and News Coverage for COVID-19: Multinational Study in Eight Countries.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, health information related to COVID-19 has spread across news media worldwide. Google is among the most used internet search engines, and the Google Trends tool can reflect how the public seeks COVID-19-related health information during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand health communication through Google Trends and news coverage and to explore their relationship with prevention and control of COVID-19 at the early epidemic stage. METHODS: To achieve the study objectives, we analyzed the public's information-seeking behaviors on Google and news media coverage on COVID-19. We collected data on COVID-19 news coverage and Google search queries from eight countries (ie, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand) between January 1 and April 29, 2020. We depicted the characteristics of the COVID-19 news coverage trends over time, as well as the search query trends for the topics of COVID-19-related "diseases," "treatments and medical resources," "symptoms and signs," and "public measures." The search query trends provided the relative search volume (RSV) as an indicator to represent the popularity of a specific search term in a specific geographic area over time. Also, time-lag correlation analysis was used to further explore the relationship between search terms trends and the number of new daily cases, as well as the relationship between search terms trends and news coverage. RESULTS: Across all search trends in eight countries, almost all search peaks appeared between March and April 2020, and declined in April 2020. Regarding COVID-19-related "diseases," in most countries, the RSV of the term "coronavirus" increased earlier than that of "covid-19"; however, around April 2020, the search volume of the term "covid-19" surpassed that of "coronavirus." Regarding the topic "treatments and medical resources," the most and least searched terms were "mask" and "ventilator," respectively. Regarding the topic "symptoms and signs," "fever" and "cough" were the most searched terms. The RSV for the term "lockdown" was significantly higher than that for "social distancing" under the topic "public health measures." In addition, when combining search trends with news coverage, there were three main patterns: (1) the pattern for Singapore, (2) the pattern for the United States, and (3) the pattern for the other countries. In the time-lag correlation analysis between the RSV for the topic "treatments and medical resources" and the number of new daily cases, the RSV for all countries except Singapore was positively correlated with new daily cases, with a maximum correlation of 0.8 for the United States. In addition, in the time-lag correlation analysis between the overall RSV for the topic "diseases" and the number of daily news items, the overall RSV was positively correlated with the number of daily news items, the maximum correlation coefficient was more than 0.8, and the search behavior occurred 0 to 17 days earlier than the news coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed public interest in masks, disease control, and public measures, and revealed the potential value of Google Trends in the face of the emergence of new infectious diseases. Also, Google Trends combined with news media can achieve more efficient health communication. Therefore, both news media and Google Trends can contribute to the early prevention and control of epidemics.

Preferences for Attributes of Initial COVID-19 Diagnosis in the United States and China During the Pandemic: Discrete Choice Experiment With Propensity Score Matching.

BACKGROUND: China and the United States play critical leading roles in the global effort to contain the COVID-19 virus. Therefore, their population's preferences for initial diagnosis were compared to provide policy and clinical insights. OBJECTIVE: We aim to quantify and compare the public's preferences for medical management of fever and the attributes of initial diagnosis in the case of presenting symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in China and the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study from January to March 2021 in China and the United States using an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire distributed through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; in the United States) and recruited volunteers (in China). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match the 2 groups of respondents from China and the United States to minimize confounding effects. In addition, the respondents' preferences for different diagnosis options were evaluated using a mixed logit model (MXL) and latent class models (LCMs). Moreover, demographic data were collected and compared using the chi-square test, Fisher test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: A total of 9112 respondents (5411, 59.4%, from China and 3701, 40.6%, from the United States) who completed our survey were included in our analysis. After PSM, 1240 (22.9%) respondents from China and 1240 (33.5%) from the United States were matched for sex, age, educational level, occupation, and annual salary levels. The segmented sizes of 3 classes of respondents from China were 870 (70.2%), 270 (21.8%), and 100 (8.0%), respectively. Meanwhile, the US respondents' segmented sizes were 269 (21.7%), 139 (11.2%), and 832 (67.1%), respectively. Respondents from China attached the greatest importance to the type of medical institution (weighted importance=40.0%), while those from the United States valued the waiting time (weighted importance=31.5%) the most. Respondents from China preferred the emergency department (coefficient=0.973, reference level: online consultation) and fever clinic (a special clinic for the treatment of fever patients for the prevention and control of acute infectious diseases in China; coefficient=0.974, reference level: online consultation), while those from the United States preferred private clinics (general practices; coefficient=0.543, reference level: online consultation). Additionally, shorter waiting times, COVID-19 nucleic acid testing arrangements, higher reimbursement rates, and lower costs were always preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in the availability of COVID-19 testing and medical professional skills and increased designated health care facilities may help boost potential health care seeking during COVID-19 and prevent unrecognized community spreading of SARS-CoV-2 in China and the United States. Moreover, to better prevent future waves of pandemics, identify undiagnosed patients, and encourage those undiagnosed to seek health care services to curb the pandemic, the hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system needs improvement in China, and the United States should focus on reducing diagnosis costs and raising the reimbursement rate of medical insurance.

Acceptance of and Preference for COVID-19 Vaccination in India, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain: An International Cross-Sectional Study.

Objective: India and Europe have large populations, a large number of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, and different healthcare systems. This study aims to investigate the differences between the hesitancy toward and preference for COVID-19 vaccines in India and four European countries, namely, the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Italy, and Spain. Methodology: We conducted a cross-national survey for distribution in India, the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain. More specifically, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to evaluate vaccine preferences, and Likert scales were used to probe the underlying factors that contribute to vaccination acceptance. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to directly compare India and European countries. Results: A total of 2565 respondents (835 from India and 1730 from the specified countries in Europe) participated in the survey. After PSM, more than 82.5% of respondents from India positively accepted the COVID-19 vaccination, whereas 79.9% of respondents from Europe had a positive attitude; however, the proportion in Europe changed to 81.6% in cases in which the vaccine was recommended by friends, family, or employers. The DCE found that the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy was the most important factor for respondents in India and the four European nations (41.8% in India and 47.77% in Europe), followed by the vaccine cost (28.06% in India and 25.88% in Europe). Conclusion: Although most respondents in both regions showed high acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, either due to general acceptance or acceptance as a result of social cues, the vaccination coverage rate shows apparent distinctions. Due to the differences in COVID-19 situations, public health systems, cultural backgrounds, and vaccine availability, the strategies for COVID-19 vaccine promotion should be nation-dependent.

Patients' Preferences for Artificial Intelligence Applications Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in China: Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosis, arbitrary charges, annoying queues, and clinic waiting times among others are long-standing phenomena in the medical industry across the world. These factors can contribute to patient anxiety about misdiagnosis by clinicians. However, with the increasing growth in use of big data in biomedical and health care communities, the performance of artificial intelligence (Al) techniques of diagnosis is improving and can help avoid medical practice errors, including under the current circumstance of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to visualize and measure patients' heterogeneous preferences from various angles of AI diagnosis versus clinicians in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic in China. We also aim to illustrate the different decision-making factors of the latent class of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and prospects for the application of AI techniques in judgment and management during the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 and in the future. METHODS: A DCE approach was the main analysis method applied in this paper. Attributes from different dimensions were hypothesized: diagnostic method, outpatient waiting time, diagnosis time, accuracy, follow-up after diagnosis, and diagnostic expense. After that, a questionnaire is formed. With collected data from the DCE questionnaire, we apply Sawtooth software to construct a generalized multinomial logit (GMNL) model, mixed logit model, and latent class model with the data sets. Moreover, we calculate the variables' coefficients, standard error, P value, and odds ratio (OR) and form a utility report to present the importance and weighted percentage of attributes. RESULTS: A total of 55.8% of the respondents (428 out of 767) opted for AI diagnosis regardless of the description of the clinicians. In the GMNL model, we found that people prefer the 100% accuracy level the most (OR 4.548, 95% CI 4.048-5.110, P<.001). For the latent class model, the most acceptable model consists of 3 latent classes of respondents. The attributes with the most substantial effects and highest percentage weights are the accuracy (39.29% in general) and expense of diagnosis (21.69% in general), especially the preferences for the diagnosis "accuracy" attribute, which is constant across classes. For class 1 and class 3, people prefer the AI + clinicians method (class 1: OR 1.247, 95% CI 1.036-1.463, P<.001; class 3: OR 1.958, 95% CI 1.769-2.167, P<.001). For class 2, people prefer the AI method (OR 1.546, 95% CI 0.883-2.707, P=.37). The OR of levels of attributes increases with the increase of accuracy across all classes. CONCLUSIONS: Latent class analysis was prominent and useful in quantifying preferences for attributes of diagnosis choice. People's preferences for the "accuracy" and "diagnostic expenses" attributes are palpable. AI will have a potential market. However, accuracy and diagnosis expenses need to be taken into consideration.

A Comparison of Vaccine Hesitancy of COVID-19 Vaccination in China and the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the differences in vaccine hesitancy and preference of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines between two countries, namely, China and the United States (U.S.). METHOD: A cross-national survey was conducted in both China and the United States, and discrete choice experiments, as well as Likert scales, were utilized to assess vaccine preference and the underlying factors contributing to vaccination acceptance. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to enable a direct comparison between the two countries. RESULTS: A total of 9077 (5375 and 3702 from China and the United States, respectively) respondents completed the survey. After propensity score matching, over 82.0% of respondents from China positively accepted the COVID-19 vaccination, while 72.2% of respondents from the United States positively accepted it. Specifically, only 31.9% of Chinese respondents were recommended by a doctor to have COVID-19 vaccination, while more than half of the U.S. respondents were recommended by a doctor (50.2%), local health board (59.4%), or friends and families (64.8%). The discrete choice experiments revealed that respondents from the United States attached the greatest importance to the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (44.41%), followed by the cost of vaccination (29.57%), whereas those from China held a different viewpoint, that the cost of vaccination covered the largest proportion in their trade-off (30.66%), and efficacy ranked as the second most important attribute (26.34%). Additionally, respondents from China tended to be much more concerned about the adverse effect of vaccination (19.68% vs. 6.12%) and have a lower perceived severity of being infected with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Although the overall acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in both countries are high, underpinned distinctions between these countries were observed. Owing to the differences in COVID-19 incidence rates, cultural backgrounds, and the availability of specific COVID-19 vaccines in the two countries, vaccine rollout strategies should be nation-dependent.

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.