The Adoption of a COVID-19 Contact-Tracing App: Cluster Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was limited adoption of contact-tracing apps (CTAs). Adoption was particularly low among vulnerable people (eg, people with a low socioeconomic position or of older age), while this part of the population tends to have lesser access to information and communication technology and is more vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the cause of this lagged adoption of CTAs in order to facilitate adoption and find indications to make public health apps more accessible and reduce health disparities. METHODS: Because several psychosocial variables were found to be predictive of CTA adoption, data from the Dutch CTA CoronaMelder (CM) were analyzed using cluster analysis. We examined whether subgroups could be formed based on 6 psychosocial perceptions (ie, trust in the government, beliefs about personal data, social norms, perceived personal and societal benefits, risk perceptions, and self-efficacy) of (non)users concerning CM in order to examine how these clusters differ from each other and what factors are predictive of the intention to use a CTA and the adoption of a CTA. The intention to use and the adoption of CM were examined based on longitudinal data consisting of 2 time frames in October/November 2020 (N=1900) and December 2020 (N=1594). The clusters were described by demographics, intention, and adoption accordingly. Moreover, we examined whether the clusters and the variables that were found to influence the adoption of CTAs, such as health literacy, were predictive of the intention to use and the adoption of the CM app. RESULTS: The final 5-cluster solution based on the data of wave 1 contained significantly different clusters. In wave 1, respondents in the clusters with positive perceptions (ie, beneficial psychosocial variables for adoption of a CTA) about the CM app were older (P<.001), had a higher education level (P<.001), and had higher intention (P<.001) and adoption (P<.001) rates than those in the clusters with negative perceptions. In wave 2, the intention to use and adoption were predicted by the clusters. The intention to use CM in wave 2 was also predicted using the adoption measured in wave 1 (P<.001, β=-2.904). Adoption in wave 2 was predicted by age (P=.022, exp(B)=1.171), the intention to use in wave 1 (P<.001, exp(B)=1.770), and adoption in wave 1 (P<.001, exp(B)=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 clusters, as well as age and previous behavior, were predictive of the intention to use and the adoption of the CM app. Through the distinguishable clusters, insight was gained into the profiles of CM (non)intenders and (non)adopters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/cq742; https://osf.io/cq742.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».