To Use or Not to Use a COVID-19 Contact Tracing App: Mixed Methods Survey in Wales
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Many countries remain in the grip of the COVID-19 global pandemic, with a considerable journey still ahead toward normalcy and free mobility. Contact tracing smartphone apps are among a raft of measures introduced to reduce spread of the virus, but their uptake depends on public choice. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to ascertain the views of citizens in Wales on their intended use of a COVID-19 contact tracing smartphone app, including self-proposed reasons for or against use and what could lead to a change of decision. METHODS: We distributed an anonymous survey among 4000 HealthWise Wales participants in May 2020. We adopted a mixed methods approach: responses to closed questions were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics; open question responses were analyzed and grouped into categories. RESULTS: A total of 976 (24.4%) people completed the survey. Smartphone usage was 91.5% overall, but this varied among age groups. In total, 97.1% were aware of contact tracing apps, but only 67.2% felt sufficiently informed. Furthermore, 55.7% intended to use an app, 23.3% refused, and 21.0% were unsure. The top reasons for app use were as follows: controlling the spread of the virus, mitigating risks for others and for oneself, and increasing freedoms. The top reasons against app use were as follows: mistrusting the government, concerns about data security and privacy, and doubts about efficacy. The top response for changing one's mind about app use from being willing to being unwilling was that nothing would; that is, they felt that nothing would cause them to become unwilling to use a contact tracing app. This was also the top response for changing one's mind from being unwilling to being willing to use contact tracing apps. Among those who were unsure of using contact tracing apps, the top response was the need for more information. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents demonstrated a keenness to help themselves, others, society, and the government to avoid contracting the virus and to control its spread. However, digital inclusion varied among age groups, precluding participation for some people. Nonetheless, unwillingness was significant, and considering the nature of the concerns raised and the perceived lack of information, policy and decision-makers need to do more to act openly, increase communication, and demonstrate trustworthiness if members of the public are to be confident in using an app.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».