Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34038376›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Considerations for the Design and Implementation of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Scoping Review.

Esli Osmanlliu, Edmond Rafie, Sylvain Bédard, Jesseca Paquette, Genevieve Gore, Marie-Pascale Pomey

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Esli OsmanlliuResearch Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5590-8866
Edmond RafieResearch Centre of the University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9158-3373
Sylvain BédardCentre d'excellence sur le partenariat avec les patients et le public, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4403-3184
Jesseca PaquetteResearch Centre of the University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0361-1440
Genevieve GoreSchulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1072-2683
Marie-Pascale PomeyResearch Centre of the University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5180-8139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the magnitude and speed of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, achieving timely and effective manual contact tracing has been a challenging task. Early in the pandemic, contact tracing apps generated substantial enthusiasm due to their potential for automating tracing and reducing transmission rates while enabling targeted confinement strategies. However, although surveys demonstrate public interest in using such apps, their actual uptake remains limited. Their social acceptability is challenged by issues around privacy, fairness, and effectiveness, among other concerns.

objectiveThis study aims to examine the extent to which design and implementation considerations for contact tracing apps are detailed in the available literature, focusing on aspects related to participatory and responsible eHealth innovation, and synthesize recommendations that support the development of successful COVID-19 contact tracing apps and related eHealth technologies.

methodsSearches were performed on five databases, and articles were selected based on eligibility criteria. Papers pertaining to the design, implementation, or acceptability of contact tracing apps were included. Articles published since 2019, written in English or French, and for which the full articles were available were considered eligible for analysis. To assess the scope of the knowledge found in the current literature, we used three complementary frameworks: (1) the Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies, (2) the Montreal model, and (3) the Responsible Innovation in Health Assessment Tool.

resultsA total of 63 articles qualified for the final analysis. Less than half of the selected articles cited the need for a participatory process (n=25, 40%), which nonetheless was the most frequently referenced item of the Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies. Regarding the Montreal model, stakeholder consultation was the most frequently described level of engagement in the development of contact tracing apps (n=24, 38%), while collaboration and partnership were cited the least (n=2, 3%). As for the Responsible Innovation in Health framework, all the articles (n=63, 100%) addressed population health, whereas only 2% (n=1) covered environmental considerations.

conclusionsMost studies lacked fundamental aspects of eHealth development and implementation. Our results demonstrate that stakeholders of COVID-19 contact tracing apps lack important information to be able to critically appraise this eHealth innovation. This may have contributed to the modest uptake of contact tracing apps worldwide. We make evidence-informed recommendations regarding data management, communication, stakeholder engagement, user experience, and implementation strategies for the successful and responsible development of contact tracing apps.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mobile ApplicationsContact TracingHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2appcontact tracingCOVID-19designeHealthexposure notificationimplementationmonitoringparticipatoryreviewsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID34038376
PMCPMC8191727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.