Survey Modalities and COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Vietnamese Americans: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diverse survey methodologies are essential to ensure equitable representation in public health research, particularly among minority populations. This study evaluates demographic differences among Vietnamese Americans who completed paper versus electronic surveys while administering the National Institutes of Health Community Engagement Alliance Common Survey 2, which focused on COVID-19-related topics. Objective: The study aimed to (1) describe the sociodemographic characteristics of survey respondents; (2) compare paper versus electronic survey modalities and their associations with respondent demographics; and (3) highlight the role of community-based organizations (CBOs) and community-engaged research in improving representativeness and inclusivity. Methods: Vietnamese adults in Texas were recruited in two phases. In phase 1 (September 2021-March 2022), surveys were administered online. In response to CBOs' feedback, phase 2 (December 2022-April 2023) added paper surveys administered by bilingual recruiters; surveys were available in English and Vietnamese. Descriptive analyses were conducted for both phases. Multivariate logistic regression, limited to phase 2, assessed factors associated with survey method preferences, including language, sex, education, COVID-19 history, and willingness to participate in COVID-19 trials. Results: Phase 1 included 224 electronic surveys. Phase 2 included 359 surveys (electronic: n=124, 34.5% and paper: n=235, 65.5%). Vietnamese speakers were significantly more likely to complete paper surveys (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 100.9, 95% CI 24.3-418.9; P<.001), as were female participants (AOR 5.09, 95% CI 1.43-18.1; P=.01). Conversely, those with a history of COVID-19 (AOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05-0.52; P=.002), a college or higher education level (AOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.67; P=.01), and high willingness to participate in COVID-19 trials (AOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.81; P=.02) were less likely to complete paper rather than electronic surveys. Conclusions: Incorporating paper surveys and engaging CBOs improved participation among Vietnamese speakers and those without postsecondary education, addressing the underrepresentation observed in phase 1. These findings highlight the importance of tailored survey methodologies to achieve demographic inclusivity in public health research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".