Resume-aware faculty matching

Find professors who actually fit you

Upload your resume. Four AI agents analyze your background, rank the faculty who fit, inspect their recent research, and help you draft outreach — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

Free to startNo credit cardCancel anytime
Top matches Balanced preset
Dr. Sarah Chen
Stanford · Interpretability · NLP
91
Dr. Marcus Holloway
MIT · Robotics · RL
84
Dr. Aisha Okonkwo
CMU · Fairness · HCI
82
Nova · Professor Researcher · re-ranking top 20…

Sarah Kreps

Verified

Cornell University · Political Science

Active 1978–2024

h-index34
Citations5.0k
Papers14462 last 5y
Funding
See your match with Sarah Kreps — sign in to PhdFit.Sign in

Research topics

  • Medicine
  • Political Science
  • Immunology
  • Environmental health
  • Nursing
  • Sociology
  • Virology
  • Economics
  • Internal medicine
  • Biology
  • Public relations
  • Demography
  • Economic growth

Selected publications

  • COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries

    Nature Medicine · 2021 · 1126 citations

    • Medicine
    • Environmental health
    • Economic growth

    Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs.

  • Public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination: The role of vaccine attributes, incentives, and misinformation

    npj Vaccines · 2021 · 127 citations

    1st authorCorresponding
    • Political Science
    • Medicine
    • Environmental health

    While efficacious vaccines have been developed to inoculate against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; also known as COVID-19), public vaccine hesitancy could still undermine efforts to combat the pandemic. Employing a survey of 1096 adult Americans recruited via the Lucid platform, we examined the relationships between vaccine attributes, proposed policy interventions such as financial incentives, and misinformation on public vaccination preferences. Higher degrees of vaccine efficacy significantly increased individuals' willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while a high incidence of minor side effects, a co-pay, and Emergency Use Authorization to fast-track the vaccine decreased willingness. The vaccine manufacturer had no influence on public willingness to vaccinate. We also found no evidence that belief in misinformation about COVID-19 treatments was positively associated with vaccine hesitancy. The findings have implications for public health strategies intending to increase levels of community vaccination.

  • Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic

    Science Advances · 2020 · 316 citations

    1st authorCorresponding
    • Political Science
    • Sociology
    • Political Science

    While scientific uncertainty always invites the risk of politicization and raises questions of how to communicate about science, this risk is magnified for COVID-19. The limited data and accelerated research timelines mean that some prominent models or findings inevitably will be overturned or retracted. In this research, we examine the attitudes of more than 6000 Americans across five different survey experiments to understand how the cue giver and cue given about scientific uncertainty regarding COVID-19 affect public trust in science and support for science-based policy. Criticism from Democratic political elites undermines trust more than criticism from Republicans. Emphasizing uncertainty in projections can erode public trust in some contexts. Downplaying uncertainty can raise support in the short term, but reversals in projections may temper these effects or even reduce scientific trust. Careful science communication is critical to maintaining public support for science-based policies as the scientific consensus shifts over time.

  • Factors Associated With US Adults’ Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccination

    JAMA Network Open · 2020 · 775 citations

    1st authorCorresponding
    • Medicine
    • Demography
    • Environmental health

    Importance: The development of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine has progressed at unprecedented speed. Widespread public uptake of the vaccine is crucial to stem the pandemic. Objective: To examine the factors associated with survey participants' self-reported likelihood of selecting and receiving a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey study of a nonprobability convenience sample of 2000 recruited participants including a choice-based conjoint analysis was conducted to estimate respondents' probability of choosing a vaccine and willingness to receive vaccination. Participants were asked to evaluate their willingness to receive each hypothetical vaccine individually. The survey presented respondents with 5 choice tasks. In each, participants evaluated 2 hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines and were asked whether they would choose vaccine A, vaccine B, or neither vaccine. Vaccine attributes included efficacy, protection duration, major adverse effects, minor adverse effects, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process, national origin of vaccine, and endorsement. Levels of each attribute for each vaccine were randomly assigned, and attribute order was randomized across participants. Survey data were collected on July 9, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Average marginal component effect sizes and marginal means were calculated to estimate the relationship between each vaccine attribute level and the probability of the respondent choosing a vaccine and self-reported willingness to receive vaccination. Results: A total of 1971 US adults responded to the survey (median age, 43 [interquartile range, 30-58] years); 999 (51%) were women, 1432 (73%) White, 277 (14%) were Black, and 190 (10%) were Latinx. An increase in efficacy from 50% to 70% was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.06-0.09), and an increase from 50% to 90% was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18). An increase in protection duration from 1 to 5 years was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.05 95% CI, 0.04-0.07). A decrease in the incidence of major adverse effects from 1 in 10 000 to 1 in 1 000 000 was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08). An FDA emergency use authorization was associated with a lower probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.01) compared with full FDA approval. A vaccine that originated from a non-US country was associated with a lower probability of choosing a vaccine (China: -0.13 [95% CI, -0.15 to -0.11]; UK: -0.04 [95% CI, -0.06 to -0.02]). Endorsements from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (coefficient, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.07-0.11) and the World Health Organization (coefficient, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.08), compared with an endorsement from President Trump were associated with higher probabilities of choosing a vaccine. Analyses of participants' willingness to receive each vaccine when assessed individually yielded similar results. An increase in efficacy from 50% to 90% was associated with a 10% higher marginal mean willingness to receive a vaccine (from 0.51 to 0.61). A reduction in the incidence of major side effects was associated with a 4% higher marginal mean willingness to receive a vaccine (from 0.54 to 0.58). A vaccine originating in China was associated with a 10% lower willingness to receive a vaccine vs one developed in the US (from 0.60 to 0.50) Endorsements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization were associated with increases in willingness to receive a vaccine (7% and 6%, respectively) from a baseline endorsement by President Trump (from 0.52 to 0.59 and from 0.52 to 0.58, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, vaccine-related attributes and political characteristics were associated with self-reported preferences for choosing a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine and self-reported willingness to receive vaccination. These results may help inform public health campaigns to address vaccine hesitancy when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available.

Frequent coauthors

  • Douglas L. Kriner

    Cornell University

    35 shared
  • Baobao Zhang

    Xinjiang University

    13 shared
  • John S. Brownstein

    Boston Children's Hospital

    12 shared
  • Matthew Fuhrmann

    10 shared
  • Nina McMurry

    Vanderbilt University

    10 shared
  • Stephen Roblin

    Cornell University

    9 shared
  • Paul Lushenko

    9 shared
  • Elizabeth N. Saunders

    7 shared
  • Resume-aware match score
  • Save to shortlist
  • AI-drafted outreach

See your match with Sarah Kreps

PhdFit ranks faculty by your research interests, methods, and publications — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

  • Free to start
  • No credit card
  • 30-second signup