SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2022
Factors Influencing the Adoption of Contact Tracing Applications: Systematic Review and Recommendations.
Synthesis 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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antecedents predicting digital contact tracing acceptance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of contact tracing interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Transforming a Pandemic Tool Into a Public Health Asset: Modified Delphi Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Assessing the usefulness of digital contact tracing using real-world contact data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- User Experience in mHealth Research: Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Developments (2007-2023).JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Review
- An individual's trust in government is a major determinant in the decision to voluntarily join a public health initiative.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Effects of User Experience in Automated Information Processing on Perceived Usefulness of Digital Contact-Tracing Apps: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Added Value of Digital Contact Tracing Support Tools for Citizens: Framework Development.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Adoption of a COVID-19 Contact Tracing App by Czech Youth: Cross-Cultural Replication Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Systematic scoping review of the implementation, adoption, use, and effectiveness of digital contact tracing interventions for COVID-19 in the Western Pacific Region.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
- Ten Years of TeleHealth and Digital Healthcare: Where Are We?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Effect of Persuasive Design on the Adoption of Exposure Notification Apps: Quantitative Study Based on COVID Alert.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The emergence of new variants of COVID-19 causing breakthrough infections and the endemic potential of the coronavirus are an indication that digital contact tracing apps (CTAs) may continue to be useful for the long haul. However, the uptake of these apps in many countries around the world has been low due to several factors militating against their adoption and usage. Objective: In this systematic review, we set out to uncover the key factors that facilitate or militate against the adoption of CTAs, which researchers, designers and other stakeholders should focus on in future iterations to increase their adoption and effectiveness in curbing the spread of COVID-19. Data Sources: Seven databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Service, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar, were searched between October 30 and January 31, 2020. A total of 777 articles were retrieved from the databases, with 13 of them included in the systematic review after screening. Study Eligibility Criteria Participants and Intervention: The criteria for including articles in the systematic review were that they could be user studies from any country around the world, must be peer-reviewed, written in English, and focused on the perception and adoption of COVID-19 contact tracing and/or exposure notification apps. Other criteria included user study design could be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed, and must have been conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the early part of 2020. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Three researchers searched seven databases (three by the first author, and two each by the second and third authors) and stored the retrieved articles in a collaborative Mendeley reference management system online. After the removal of duplicates, each researcher independently screened one third of the articles based on title/abstract. Thereafter, all three researchers collectively screened articles that were in the borderline prior to undergoing a full-text review. Then, each of the three researchers conducted a full-text review of one-third of the eligible articles to decide the final articles to be included in the systematic review. Next, all three researchers went through the full text of each borderline article to determine their appropriateness and relevance. Finally, each researcher extracted the required data from one-third of the included articles into a collaborative Google spreadsheet and the first author utilized the data to write the review. Results: This review identified 13 relevant articles, which found 56 factors that may positively or negatively impact the adoption of CTAs. The identified factors were thematically grouped into ten categories: privacy and trust, app utility, facilitating conditions, social-cognitive factors, ethical concerns, perceived technology threats, perceived health threats, technology familiarity, persuasive design, and socio-demographic factors. Of the 56 factors, privacy concern turned out to be the most frequent factor of CTA adoption (12/13), followed by perceived benefit (7/13), perceived trust (6/13), and perceived data security risk (6/13). In the structural equation models presented by the authors of the included articles, a subset of the 56 elicited factors (e.g., perceived benefit and privacy concern) explains 16 to 77% of the variance of users' intention to download, install, or use CTAs to curb the spread of COVID-19. Potential adoption rates of CTA range from 19% (in Australia) to 75% (in France, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, and United States). Moreover, actual adoption rates range from 37% (in Australia) to 50% (in Germany). Finally, most of the studies were carried out in Europe (66.7%), followed by North America (13.3%), and Australia, Asia, and South America (6.7% each). Conclusion: The results suggest that future CTA iterations should give priority to privacy protection through minimal data collection and transparency, improving contact tracing benefits (personal and social), and fostering trust through laudable gestures such as delegating contact tracing to public health authorities, making source code publicly available and stating who will access user data, when, how, and what it will be used for. Moreover, the results suggest that data security and tailored persuasive design, involving reward, self-monitoring, and social-location monitoring features, have the potential of improving CTA adoption. Hence, in addition to addressing issues relating to utility, privacy, trust, and data security, we recommend the integration of persuasive features into future designs of CTAs to improve their motivational appeal, adoption, and the user experience. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021259080 PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021259080.
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.