Effectiveness, Policy, and User Acceptance of COVID-19 Contact-Tracing Apps in the Post–COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Experience and Comparative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In the post-COVID-19 pandemic era, many countries have launched apps to trace contacts of COVID-19 infections. Each contact-tracing app (CTA) faces a variety of issues owing to different national policies or technologies for tracing contacts. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to investigate all the CTAs used to trace contacts in various countries worldwide, including the technology used by each CTA, the availability of knowledge about the CTA from official websites, the interoperability of CTAs in various countries, and the infection detection rates and policies of the specific country that launched the CTA, and to summarize the current problems of the apps based on the information collected. METHODS: We investigated CTAs launched in all countries through Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. We experimented with all apps that could be installed and compiled information about apps that could not be installed or used by consulting official websites and previous literature. We compared the information collected by us on CTAs with relevant previous literature to understand and analyze the data. RESULTS: After screening 166 COVID-19 apps developed in 197 countries worldwide, we selected 98 (59%) apps from 95 (48.2%) countries, of which 63 (66.3%) apps were usable. The methods of contact tracing are divided into 3 main categories: Bluetooth, geolocation, and QR codes. At the technical level, CTAs face 3 major problems. First, the distance and time for Bluetooth- and geolocation-based CTAs to record contact are generally set to 2 meters and 15 minutes; however, this distance should be lengthened, and the time should be shortened for more infectious variants. Second, Bluetooth- or geolocation-based CTAs also face the problem of lack of accuracy. For example, individuals in 2 adjacent vehicles during traffic jams may be at a distance of ≤2 meters to make the CTA trace contact, but the 2 users may actually be separated by car doors, which could prevent transmission and infection. In addition, we investigated infection detection rates in 33 countries, 16 (48.5%) of which had significantly low infection detection rates, wherein CTAs could have lacked effectiveness in reducing virus propagation. Regarding policy, CTAs in most countries can only be used in their own countries and lack interoperability among other countries. In addition, 7 countries have already discontinued CTAs, but we believe that it was too early to discontinue them. Regarding user acceptance, 28.6% (28/98) of CTAs had no official source of information that could reduce user acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: We surveyed all CTAs worldwide, identified their technological policy and acceptance issues, and provided solutions for each of the issues we identified. This study aimed to provide useful guidance and suggestions for updating the existing CTAs and the subsequent development of new CTAs.
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 | 0,012 | 0,060 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».