ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Determinants of Dutch public health professionals' intention to use digital contact tracing support tools: A cross-sectional online questionnaire study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contact tracing (CT) can be a resource intensive task for public health services. To alleviate their workload and potentially accelerate the CT-process, public health professionals (PHPs) may transfer some tasks in the identification, notification, and monitoring of contacts to cases and their contacts themselves, using 'digital contact tracing support tools' (DCTS-tools). In this study, we aimed to identify determinants of PHPs' intention to use DCTS-tools. Between February and April 2022, we performed a cross-sectional online questionnaire study among PHPs involved in CT for COVID-19 in the Netherlands. We built three random forest models to identify determinants of PHPs' intention to use DCTS-tools for the identification, notification, and monitoring of contacts, respectively. The online questionnaire was completed by 641 PHPs. Most respondents had a positive intention towards using DCTS-tools for the identification (64.5%), notification (58%), and monitoring (55.2%) of contacts. Random forest models were able to correctly predict the intention of 81%, 80%, and 81% of respondents to use DCTS-tools for the identification, notification, and monitoring of contacts, respectively. Top-determinants of having a positive intention are the anticipated effect of DCTS-tools on the feasibility and efficiency of CT (speed, workload, difficulty), the degree to which PHPs anticipated that cases and contacts may find it pleasant and may be willing to participate in CT using DCTS-tools, and the degree to which PHPs anticipated that cases and contacts are sufficiently supported in CT when using DCTS-tools. Most PHPs have a positive intention to involve cases and their contacts in the identification, notification, and monitoring stages of the CT-process through DCTS-tools. The identified top-determinants should be prioritized in the (future) development and implementation of DCTS-tools in public health practice. Citizens' perspectives on the use of DCTS-tools should be investigated in future research.
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.