Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360366›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022

Kiemute Oyibo, Plinio Pelegrini Morita

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors.

Kiemute OyiboSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Plinio Pelegrini MoritaSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The continued emergence of new variants of COVID-19 such as the Delta and Omicron variants, which can cause breakthrough infections, indicates that contact tracing and exposure notification apps (ENAs) will continue to be useful for the long haul. However, there is limited work to uncover the strongest factors that influence their adoption. Using Canada's "COVID Alert" as a case study, we conducted an empirical, technology-acceptance study to investigate the key factors that account for users' intention to use ENAs and the moderating effect of important human and design factors. Our path model analysis shows that four factors significantly influence the adoption of COVID Alert among Canadian residents: perceived risk, perceived usefulness, perceived trust, and perceived compatibility. The overall model explains over 60% of intention to use, with type of design, use case (functional interface), and adoption status moderating the strength of the relationships between the four factors and intention to use. We discuss these findings and make recommendations for the design of future ENAs.

Indexed as

adoptioncontact tracing appCOVID-19COVID Alertexposure notification apppersuasive designtechnology acceptance model

Identifiers

PMID35360366
PMCPMC8961808

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.