FIT FOR PURPOSE IN ACTION: DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL INTERNET FLU SURVEY.

Researchers strive to design and implement high-quality surveys to maximize the utility of the data collected. The definitions of quality and usefulness, however, vary from survey to survey and depend on the analytic needs. Survey teams must evaluate the trade-offs of various decisions, such as when results are needed and their required level of precision, in addition to practical constraints like budget, before finalizing the design. Characteristics within the concept of fit for purpose (FfP) can provide the framework for considering the trade-offs. Furthermore, this tool can enable an evaluation of quality for the resulting estimates. Implementation of a FfP framework in this context, however, is not straightforward. In this article, we provide the reader with a glimpse of a FfP framework in action for obtaining estimates on early season influenza vaccination coverage estimates and on knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and barriers related to influenza and influenza prevention among civilian noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 years and older in the United States. The result is the National Internet Flu Survey (NIFS), an annual, two-week internet survey sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition to critical design decisions, we use the established NIFS FfP framework to discuss the quality of the NIFS in meeting the intended objectives. We highlight aspects that work well and other survey traits requiring further evaluation. Differences found in comparing the NIFS to the National Flu Survey, the National Health Interview Survey, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are discussed via their respective FfP characteristics. The findings presented here highlight the importance of the FfP framework for designing surveys, defining data quality, and providing a set a metrics used to advertise the intended use of the survey data and results.

Trends in place of early-season influenza vaccination among adults, 2014-15 through 2018-19 influenza seasons-The importance of medical and nonmedical settings for vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Annual vaccination is the most effective strategy for preventing influenza. We assessed trends and demographic and access-to-care characteristics associated with place of vaccination in recent years. METHODS: Data from the 2014-2018 National Internet Flu Survey were analyzed to assess trends in place of early-season influenza vaccination during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify factors independently associated with vaccination settings in the 2018-19 season. RESULTS: Among vaccinated adults, the proportion vaccinated in medical (range: 49%-53%) versus nonmedical settings (range: 47%-51%) during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons were similar. Among adults aged ≥18 years vaccinated early in the 2018-19 influenza season, a doctor's office was the most common place (34.4%), followed by pharmacies or stores (32.3%), and workplaces (15.0%). Characteristics significantly associated with an increased likelihood of receipt of vaccination in nonmedical settings among adults included household income ≥$50,000, having no doctor visits since July 1, 2018, or having a doctor visit but not receiving an influenza vaccination recommendation from the medical professional. CONCLUSIONS: Place of early-season influenza vaccination among adults who reported receiving influenza vaccination was stable over 5 recent seasons. Both medical and nonmedical settings were important places for influenza vaccination. Increasing access to vaccination services in medical and nonmedical settings should be considered as an important strategy for improving vaccination coverage.

The Effectiveness of Incentives on Completion Rates, Data Quality, and Nonresponse Bias in a Probability-based Internet Panel Survey.

Previous research has shown that increasing the size of incentives can increase response rates for probability-based, cross-sectional surveys. However, the effects of incentives on web panels have not been extensively studied. We sought to answer the question: What is the effect of larger, postpaid incentives on (1) response, (2) data quality, and (3) nonresponse bias for individuals in a web panel? We analyzed data from the 2015 and 2016 National Internet Flu Survey, a survey that uses the GfK KnowledgePanel® as its sampling frame. We compare panel members who received a postpaid, standard 1,000-point (the equivalent of US$1) incentive in 2015 to panelists who received a larger, 5,000-point (the equivalent of US$5) incentive in 2016. We found that larger incentives were associated with increased interview completion rates with minimal impact on data quality or bias.

Influenza vaccination among adults living with persons at high-risk for complications from influenza during early 2016-17 influenza season.

BACKGROUND: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends all persons aged ≥6 months get vaccinated for influenza annually, placing particular emphasis on persons who are at increased risk for influenza-related complications and persons living with or caring for them. METHODS: Data from the 2016 National Internet Flu Survey (NIFS), a nationally representative, probability-based Internet panel survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged ≥18 years, was used to compare influenza vaccination coverage among adults who live with household members at high-risk for complications from influenza with those who do not. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the difference in the adjusted vaccination coverage prevalence between persons living with and without high-risk household members. RESULTS: From the 2016 NIFS (n = 4,113), we estimated that 29.2% of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults had at least one household member at increased risk for influenza-related complications. Unadjusted influenza vaccination coverage was significantly higher for adults with a high-risk household member compared with those without (46.7% vs 38.6%, respectively). After adjustment for demographic and access-to-care factors, adults with high-risk household members were more likely to be vaccinated than those without (adjusted prevalence difference = 5.3 [0.3, 10.3]). Among vaccinated respondents with high-risk household members, 88.7% reported that protection of their family and close contacts was one of the reasons they were vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of adults living with someone at increased risk of complications from influenza did not report receiving an influenza vaccination. Vaccination reminder/recall for persons at increased risk should include reminders for their household contacts.

Association of provider recommendation and offer and influenza vaccination among adults aged ≥18 years - United States.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination has been recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months since 2010. METHODS: Data from the 2016 National Internet Flu Survey were analyzed to assess provider vaccination recommendations and early influenza vaccination during the 2016-17 season among adults aged ≥18 years. Predictive marginals from a multivariable logistic regression model were used to identify factors independently associated with early vaccine uptake by provider vaccination recommendation status. RESULTS: Overall, 24.0% visited a provider who both recommended and offered influenza vaccination, 9.0% visited a provider who only recommended but did not offer, 25.1% visited a provider who neither recommended nor offered, and 41.9% did not visit a doctor from July 1 through date of interview. Adults who reported that a provider both recommended and offered vaccine had significantly higher vaccination coverage (66.6%) compared with those who reported that a provider only recommended but did not offer (48.4%), those who neither received recommendation nor offer (32.0%), and those who did not visit a doctor during the vaccination period (28.8%). Results of multivariable logistic regression indicated that having received a provider recommendation, with or without an offer for vaccination, was significantly associated with higher vaccination coverage after controlling for demographic and access-to-care factors. CONCLUSIONS: Provider recommendation was significantly associated with influenza vaccination. However, overall, 67.0% of adults did not visit a doctor during the vaccination period or did visit a doctor but did not receive a provider recommendation. Evidence-based strategies such as client reminder/recall, standing orders, provider reminders, or health systems interventions in combination should be undertaken to improve provider recommendation and influenza vaccination coverage. Other factors significantly associated with a higher level of influenza vaccination included age ≥50 years, being Hispanic, having a college or higher education, having a usual place for medical care, and having public health insurance.