Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36569467›Full record

ArticlePervasive and mobile computing2021

What makes people install a COVID-19 contact-tracing app? Understanding the influence of app design and individual difference on contact-tracing app adoption intention.

Tianshi Li, Camille Cobb, Jackie Junrui Yang, Sagar Baviskar, Yuvraj Agarwal, Beibei Li, Lujo Bauer, Jason I Hong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pervasive and mobile computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Tianshi LiCarnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15213, PA, United States.
Camille CobbCarnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15213, PA, United States.
Jackie Junrui YangStanford University, 450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, 94305, CA, United States.
Sagar BaviskarCarnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15213, PA, United States.
Yuvraj AgarwalCarnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15213, PA, United States.
Beibei LiCarnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15213, PA, United States.
Lujo BauerCarnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15213, PA, United States.
Jason I HongCarnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15213, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smartphone-based contact-tracing apps are a promising solution to help scale up the conventional contact-tracing process. However, low adoption rates have become a major issue that prevents these apps from achieving their full potential. In this paper, we present a national-scale survey experiment (

Indexed as

Contact-tracing appsCOVID-19Quantitative analysisSecurity and privacySurvey experiment

Identifiers

PMID36569467
PMCPMC9760841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.