SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
Antecedents predicting digital contact tracing acceptance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Discrimination and technology-based disease control.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An awareness of antecedents of acceptance of digital contact tracing (DCT) can enable healthcare authorities to design appropriate strategies for fighting COVID-19 or other infectious diseases that may emerge in the future. However, mixed results about these antecedents are frequently reported. Most prior DCT acceptance review studies lack statistical synthesis of their results. This study aims to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of antecedents of DCT acceptance and investigate potential moderators of these antecedents. By searching multiple databases and filtering studies by using both inclusion and exclusion criteria, 76 and 25 studies were included for systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Random-effects models were chosen to estimate meta-analysis results since Q, I
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.