ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2021
Survey on usage and concerns of a COVID-19 contact tracing application in Japan.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effectiveness of and Inequalities in COVID-19 Epidemic Control Strategies in Hungary: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Public Attitudes Regarding Trade-offs Between the Functional Aspects of a Contact-Confirming App for COVID-19 Infection Control and the Benefits to Individuals and Public Health: Cross-sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Ibaraki's Amabie-chan usage and its association with infection prevention behavior and fear of COVID-19: a cross-sectional preliminary survey of the Tsukuba Salutogenic Occupational Cohort Study.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Tracing app technology: an ethical review in the COVID-19 era and directions for post-COVID-19.Ethics and information technology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to identify the concerns, current implementation status and correct usage, and factors inhibiting implementation and correct use of a COVID-19 contact tracing application among the ordinary citizens in Japan. STUDY
designThis was a cross-sectional study based on an internet survey completed by 2013 participants who were selected among registrants of an Internet research company between September 8 and 13, 2020.
methodsParticipants completed an online survey that included thoughts and concerns about the application, status of use, and questions about whether the application was being used correctly. We performed multiple logistic regression analysis to clarify the association between the use of the app and sociodemographic factors and user concerns.
resultsOf the 2013 respondents, 429 (21.3%) participants reported using this application, but only 60.8% of them used it correctly. The percentage of those having some concerns about the application ranged from 45.9% to 75.5%, with the highest percentage being 'doubts about effectiveness of apps for preventing spread of infection'. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed, the main concerns inhibiting application use were insufficient knowledge of how to use it, privacy concerns, doubts about the effectiveness of the app, and concerns about battery consumption and communication costs. Additionally, the prevalence of the application was lower for lower-income individuals.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that income may create inequalities in the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 contact tracing applications. Awareness activity strategies to dispel such concerns and support low-income individuals may be needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.