MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096771349 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdaa183

A cross-sectional population survey of physicians in Alberta, Canada about a novel provincial contact tracing smartphone app

2020· article· en· W3096771349 on OpenAlexaffabout
D. Jérôme, Matthew Pietrosanu, Karamveer Dhillon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmartphone appPublic healthCross-sectional studyContact tracingMedicineFamily medicinePopulationIntervention (counseling)Smartphone applicationMedical educationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingEnvironmental healthInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Canadian province of Alberta released the ABTraceTogether smartphone app in May 2020 to assist in contact tracing during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Public engagement with this public health tool has been low, limiting the effectiveness of the intervention. This study examines physician knowledge of the app and practice patterns in relation to the app. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional self-administered online English language survey of physicians and medical students in Alberta, Canada. The survey link was sent to all registered members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and was distributed by other provincial physician organizations and health zone leaders. RESULTS: The survey received 317 responses. 96% of participants were aware of the app but only 27% had recommended the app to patients. The most common reason provided for not downloading or recommending the app was that participants had security concerns about the app. 23% of participants indicated they did not believe they had a responsibility to recommend the app to others. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insights into participants' knowledge and beliefs about the ABTraceTogether app. This information may be valuable to public health officials who wish to engage physicians in future public health campaigns.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public HealthSame topicCOVID-19 Digital Contact TracingFrench-language works237,207