Use of unconventional data to monitor behaviors associated with influenza and dengue infections: a systematic review
Keywords:
dengue, Influenza vaccination, health care workers, vaccination coverage, communication campaigns, informative strategies, unconventional data, Preventive behaviorAbstract
Background: Influenza and dengue are two high-impact infectious diseases representing a persistent challenge to health systems worldwide. Their control depends not only on identification of viral transmission patterns, but also on understanding human choices, including vaccine uptake, personal protection, and adherence to public guidance. Classical reporting mechanisms, although reliable, often provide delayed or incomplete pictures of population behavior. In recent years, alternative information streams, such as online searches, social platforms, and mobile-based tools have been explored as rapid proxies to capture preventive actions and community sentiment.
Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature, according to PRISMA standards. Multiple databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and PsycInfo) were queried without language restrictions. Eligible contributions were those employing unconventional digital traces or unconventional data to monitor prevention-related behaviors in the context of influenza or dengue. Extracted items included data source, infectious diseases explored, behavioral outcome and principal conclusions.
Results: From 5,448 records, 44 articles satisfied inclusion parameters. Overall, 33 studies addressed influenza vaccination interest and protective measures, whereas nine examined dengue-related prevention behaviors, and two addressed both influenza and dengue. Internet search activity and microblogging platforms were the most frequently used sources. Approaches ranged from straightforward frequency tracking to advanced predictive algorithms. Several studies demonstrated that these data sources could anticipate behavioral shifts before official statistics; however, validation against ground-based behavioral measures was inconsistent and representativeness remained a recurrent concern.
Discussion: Unconventional information streams appear promising for complementing established monitoring frameworks by offering faster signals and broader contextual awareness. Yet their usefulness is tempered by biases in digital participation, susceptibility to rumor propagation, and lack of standardized evaluation. Considering the distinct characteristics of influenza and dengue, these findings suggest that unconventional data can enrich prevention monitoring if integrated with traditional systems, coupled with rigorous methodological assessment, and applied with attention to equity.
References
1. Baker RE, Mahmud AS, Miller IF, Rajeev M, Rasambainarivo F, Rice BL, et al. Infectious disease in an era of global change. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022 Apr;20(4):193–205.
2. Influenza (seasonal) [Internet]. [cited 2025 Sept 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal)
3. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496(7446):504–7.
4. Dengue and severe dengue [Internet]. [cited 2025 Sept 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/dengue-and-severe-dengue
5. Funk S, Salathé M, Jansen VAA. Modelling the influence of human behaviour on the spread of infectious diseases: a review. J R Soc Interface. 2010 Sept 6;7(50):1247–56.
6. Verelst F, Willem L, Beutels P. Behavioural change models for infectious disease transmission: a systematic review (2010-2015). J R Soc Interface. 2016 Dec;13(125):20160820.
7. Salathé M, Bengtsson L, Bodnar TJ, Brewer DD, Brownstein JS, Buckee C, et al. Digital epidemiology. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(7):e1002616.
8. Oliver N, Lepri B, Sterly H, Lambiotte R, Deletaille S, De Nadai M, et al. Mobile phone data for informing public health actions across the COVID-19 pandemic life cycle. Sci Adv. 2020 June;6(23):eabc0764.
9. Lazer D, Kennedy R, King G, Vespignani A. Big data. The parable of Google Flu: traps in big data analysis. Science. 2014 Mar 14;343(6176):1203–5.
10. Gentile L, Bertuccio P, Ancona A, Cucchi A, Dallagiacoma G, Godoy MA, et al. Can youtube be trusted as a source of quality and reliable information on COVID-19 vaccination in Italy? Acta Biomedica Atenei Parmensis. 2023 Aug 30;94(S3):e2023163–e2023163.
11. Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct;7(10):201199.
12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine. 2021 Mar 29;18(3):e1003583.
13. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210.
14. Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, Tufanaru C, Stern C, McArthur A, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020 Oct;18(10):2127–33.
15. Higgins JPT, Morgan RL, Rooney AA, Taylor KW, Thayer KA, Silva RA, et al. A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E). Environ Int. 2024 Apr;186:108602.
16. Hong, Q.N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., et al. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.
17. Berning P, Huang L, Razavi AC, Boakye E, Osuji N, Stokes AC, et al. Association of Online Search Trends With Vaccination in the United States: June 2020 Through May 2021. Front Immunol. 2022;13:884211.
18. Baltrusaitis K, Reed C, Sewalk K, Brownstein JS, Crawley AW, Biggerstaff M. Healthcare-Seeking Behavior for Respiratory Illness Among Flu Near You Participants in the United States During the 2015–2016 Through 2018–2019 Influenza Seasons. J Infect Dis. 2020 Aug 6;226(2):270–7.
19. Besculides M, Heffernan R, Mostashari F, Weiss D. Evaluation of school absenteeism data for early outbreak detection, New York City. BMC Public Health. 2005 Oct 7;5:105.
20. Chan MPS, Jamieson KH, Albarracin D. Prospective associations of regional social media messages with attitudes and actual vaccination: A big data and survey study of the influenza vaccine in the United States. Vaccine. 2020 Sept 11;38(40):6236–47.
21. Chang YW, Chiang WL, Wang WH, Lin CY, Hung LC, Tsai YC, et al. Google Trends-based non-English language query data and epidemic diseases: a cross-sectional study of the popular search behaviour in Taiwan. BMJ Open. 2020 July 5;10(7):e034156.
22. Dai J, Lyu F, Yu L, He Y. Temporal and Emotional Variations in People’s Perceptions of Mass Epidemic Infectious Disease After the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Influenza A as an Example: Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis Based on Weibo Data. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Nov 2;25:e49300.
23. Dale LP, White L, Mitchell M, Faulkner G. Smartphone app uses loyalty point incentives and push notifications to encourage influenza vaccine uptake. Vaccine. 2019 July 26;37(32):4594–600.
24. Huang X, Smith MC, Jamison AM, Broniatowski DA, Dredze M, Quinn SC, et al. Can online self-reports assist in real-time identification of influenza vaccination uptake? A cross-sectional study of influenza vaccine-related tweets in the USA, 2013–2017. 2019 Jan 1 [cited 2025 Aug 13]; Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e024018
25. Davies GR, Finch RG. Sales of over-the-counter remedies as an early warning system for winter bed crises. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003 Aug;9(8):858–63.
26. Dhaliwal D, Mannion C. Antivaccine Messages on Facebook: Preliminary Audit. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Oct 20;6(4):e18878.
27. Dugas AF, Hsieh YH, Levin SR, Pines JM, Mareiniss DP, Mohareb A, et al. Google Flu Trends: correlation with emergency department influenza rates and crowding metrics. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Feb 15;54(4):463–9.
28. Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: tracking flu-related searches on the web for syndromic surveillance. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;2006:244–8.
29. Guidry JPD, Austin LL, O’Donnell NH, Coman IA, Lovari A, Messner M. Tweeting the #flushot: Beliefs, Barriers, and Threats During Different Periods of the 2018 to 2019 Flu Season. J Prim Care Community Health. 2020;11:2150132720932722.
30. Guidry JPD, Coman IA, Vraga EK, O’Donnell NH, Sreepada N. (S)pin the flu vaccine: Recipes for concern. Vaccine. 2020 July 22;38(34):5498–506.
31. Lee WN, Stück D, Konty K, Rivers C, Brown CR, Zbikowski SM, et al. Large-scale influenza vaccination promotion on a mobile app platform: A randomized controlled trial. Vaccine. 2020 Apr 16;38(18):3508–14.
32. Magruder SF. Evaluation of Over-the-Counter Pharmaceutical Sales As a Possible Early Warning Indicator of Human Disease.
33. Meyer SB, Violette R, Aggarwal R, Simeoni M, MacDougall H, Waite N. Vaccine hesitancy and Web 2.0: Exploring how attitudes and beliefs about influenza vaccination are exchanged in online threaded user comments. Vaccine. 2019 Mar 22;37(13):1769–74.
34. Nawa N, Kogaki S, Takahashi K, Ishida H, Baden H, Katsuragi S, et al. Analysis of public concerns about influenza vaccinations by mining a massive online question dataset in Japan. Vaccine. 2016 June 8;34(27):3207–13.
35. Nougairède A, Lagier JC, Ninove L, Sartor C, Badiaga S, Botelho E, et al. Likely correlation between sources of information and acceptability of A/H1N1 swine-origin influenza virus vaccine in Marseille, France. PLoS One. 2010 June 25;5(6):e11292.
36. Ortiz JR, Zhou H, Shay DK, Neuzil KM, Fowlkes AL, Goss CH. Monitoring Influenza Activity in the United States: A Comparison of Traditional Surveillance Systems with Google Flu Trends. PLOS ONE. 2011 Apr 27;6(4):e18687.
37. Polgreen PM, Chen Y, Pennock DM, Nelson FD. Using internet searches for influenza surveillance. Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Dec 1;47(11):1443–8.
38. Powell GA, Zinszer K, Verma A, Bahk C, Madoff L, Brownstein J, et al. Media content about vaccines in the United States and Canada, 2012-2014: An analysis using data from the Vaccine Sentimeter. Vaccine. 2016 Dec 7;34(50):6229–35.
39. Prieto Santamaría L, Tuñas JM, Fernández Peces-Barba D, Jaramillo A, Cotarelo M, Menasalvas E, et al. Influenza and Measles-MMR: two case study of the trend and impact of vaccine-related Twitter posts in Spanish during 2015-2018. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022 Jan 31;18(1):1–16.
40. Saito S, Saito N, Itoga M, Ozaki H, Kimura T, Okamura Y, et al. Influence of Media on Seasonal Influenza Epidemic Curves. Int J Infect Dis. 2016 Sept;50:6–9.
41. Salathé M, Khandelwal S. Assessing Vaccination Sentiments with Online Social Media: Implications for Infectious Disease Dynamics and Control. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Oct 13;7(10):e1002199.
42. Santangelo OE, Provenzano S, Gianfredi V. Infodemiology of flu: Google trends-based analysis of Italians’ digital behavior and a focus on SARS-CoV-2, Italy. J Prev Med Hyg. 2021 Sept 15;62(3):E586–91.
43. Signorini A, Segre AM, Polgreen PM. The use of Twitter to track levels of disease activity and public concern in the U.S. during the influenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLoS One. 2011 May 4;6(5):e19467.
44. Sycińska-Dziarnowska M, Woźniak K, Paradowska-Stankiewicz I. Intrest in influenza and influenza like illnesses in Poland 2016-2021 based on Google Trend’s data analysis. Przegl Epidemiol. 2022;76(1):11–8.
45. Valdivia A, Lopez-Alcalde J, Vicente M, Pichiule M, Ruiz M, Ordobas M. Monitoring influenza activity in Europe with Google Flu Trends: comparison with the findings of sentinel physician networks - results for 2009-10. Euro Surveill. 2010 July 22;15(29):19621.
46. Wagner M, Lampos V, Yom-Tov E, Pebody R, Cox IJ. Estimating the Population Impact of a New Pediatric Influenza Vaccination Program in England Using Social Media Content. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Dec 21;19(12):e416.
47. Wilson N, Mason K, Tobias M, Peacey M, Huang QS, Baker M. Interpreting Google flu trends data for pandemic H1N1 influenza: the New Zealand experience. Euro Surveill. 2009 Nov 5;14(44):19386.
48. Cook S, Conrad C, Fowlkes AL, Mohebbi MH. Assessing Google flu trends performance in the United States during the 2009 influenza virus A (H1N1) pandemic. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23610.
49. Hulth A, Rydevik G. Web query-based surveillance in Sweden during the influenza A(H1N1)2009 pandemic, April 2009 to February 2010. Euro Surveill. 2011 May 5;16(18):19856.
50. Althouse BM, Ng YY, Cummings DAT. Prediction of dengue incidence using search query surveillance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Aug;5(8):e1258.
51. Bravo C, Castells VB, Zietek-Gutsch S, Bodin PA, Molony C, Frühwein M. Using social media listening and data mining to understand travellers’ perspectives on travel disease risks and vaccine-related attitudes and behaviours. J Travel Med. 2022 Mar 21;29(2):taac009.
52. Carvajal P, Balanay JAG, Shearman S, Richards SL. Facebook and mosquito-borne disease outbreaks: An analysis of public responses to federal health agencies’ posts about dengue and Zika in 2016. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022;2(9):e0000977.
53. Chan EH, Sahai V, Conrad C, Brownstein JS. Using web search query data to monitor dengue epidemics: a new model for neglected tropical disease surveillance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 May;5(5):e1206.
54. Espina K, Estuar MaRJE. Infodemiology for Syndromic Surveillance of Dengue and Typhoid Fever in the Philippines. Procedia Computer Science. 2017 Jan 1;121:554–61.
55. Gluskin RT, Johansson MA, Santillana M, Brownstein JS. Evaluation of Internet-Based Dengue Query Data: Google Dengue Trends. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2014 Feb 27;8(2):e2713.
56. Jamora RDG, Lim MAR, Espiritu AI. Philippine immunization coverage and dengvaxia: An infodemiological study. Pediatr Int. 2023;65(1):e15623.
57. Ho HT, Carvajal TM, Bautista JR, Capistrano JDR, Viacrusis KM, Hernandez LFT, et al. Using Google Trends to Examine the Spatio-Temporal Incidence and Behavioral Patterns of Dengue Disease: A Case Study in Metropolitan Manila, Philippines. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2018 Nov 11;3(4):118.
58. Strauss R, Castro JS, Reintjes R, Torres J, Olivares JM, Herrera M, et al. Google dengue trends: An indicator of epidemic behavior. The Venezuelan case. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2016 Dec 1;53:119–20.
59. Meankaew P, Lawpoolsri S, Piyaphanee W, Wansatid P, Chaovalit P, Lawawirojwong S, et al. Cross-platform mobile app development for disseminating public health information to travelers in Thailand: development and usability. Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines. 2022 July 15;8(1):17.
60. Milinovich GJ, Avril SMR, Clements ACA, Brownstein JS, Tong S, Hu W. Using internet search queries for infectious disease surveillance: screening diseases for suitability. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2014 Dec 31;14(1):690.
61. World Bank country classifications by income level for 2024-2025 [Internet]. [cited 2025 Sept 15]. Available from: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/world-bank-country-classifications-by-income-level-for-2024-2025
62. Bansal S, Chowell G, Simonsen L, Vespignani A, Viboud C. Big Data for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Modeling. J Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 1;214(suppl_4):S375–9.
63. Cheah BCJ, Vicente CR, Chan KR. Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Diagnosis, and Prognosis. Viruses. 2025 June 23;17(7):882.
64. Sylla B, Ismaila O, Diallo G. 25 Years of Digital Health Toward Universal Health Coverage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2025 May 29;27:e59042.
65. Monlezun DJ, Omutoko L, Oduor P, Kokonya D, Rayel J, Sotomayor C, et al. Digitalization of health care in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2025 Feb 1;103(2):148–54.
66. Shanahan H, Bezuidenhout L. Rethinking the A in FAIR Data: Issues of Data Access and Accessibility in Research. Front Res Metr Anal. 2022;7:912456.
67. Cervellin G, Comelli I, Lippi G. Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2017 Sept;7(3):185–9.
68. Comer L, Donelle L, Hiebert B, Smith MJ, Kothari A, Stranges S, et al. Short- and Long-Term Predicted and Witnessed Consequences of Digital Surveillance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 May 24;10:e47154.
69. Mesquita S, Perfeito L, Paolotti D, Gonçalves-Sá J. Epidemiological methods in transition: Minimizing biases in classical and digital approaches. PLOS Digit Health. 2025 Jan;4(1):e0000670.
70. Fallatah DI, Adekola HA. Digital Epidemiology: Harnessing Big Data For Early Detection And Monitoring Of Viral Outbreaks, Journal: Infection Prevention in Practice, : 2024, ISSN: 2590-0889.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rita Cuciniello, Giovanni Emanuele Ricciardi, Angela Ancona, Davide Di Napoli, Chiara Tassan Din, Antonella Castagna, Cristina Renzi, Giovanni Rezza, Matteo Moro, Greta Chiecca (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.