ArticlePravention und Gesundheitsforderung2022
["I hope to be informed". Effects of the Corona-Warning-App].
Article in Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung, 2022. 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.
- Article
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
Background: The Corona-Warning-App of the Robert Koch-Institute is the most widely used digital public health intervention during this pandemic. Nevertheless, in October 2020, at the beginning of a new wave of infection, it reaches just one fifth of the population. This means that the app's potential to provide information about potential infections, which have taken place unnoticed, is dwindling. Aims: The aim of the study is to explore the subjective perception and impact of the app on the individual, as well as the inhibiting and facilitating factors of its use. These effects can provide conclusions about the needs of the population and accordingly challenges for public health. Materials and methods: The dataset was created through two procedural steps. The first step is a forum analysis of a total of 300 reviews. The second step consists of 40 qualitative, semi-structured interviews. The data were inductively-deductively coded and evaluated along a content-structuring form of qualitative content analysis. Results and conclusion: The effects of the app are a result of complex interactions. Of central importance for the dynamics are public spaces and social interactions, which are perceived as dangerous during this pandemic. Against this background, practices with the app can generate new visibilities that lead to a reassessment of the concrete threat. This again, can reopen possibilities for action. However, critical positions on data protection and data security may lead to new insecurities and possibly to the rejection of the app.
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.