Attitudes Toward Using COVID-19 mHealth Tools Among Adults With Chronic Health Conditions: Secondary Data Analysis of the COVID-19 Impact Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with chronic conditions are disproportionately burdened by COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Although COVID-19 mobile health (mHealth) apps have emerged, research on attitudes toward using COVID-19 mHealth tools among those with chronic conditions is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine attitudes toward COVID-19, identify determinants of COVID-19 mHealth tool use across demographic and health-related characteristics, and evaluate associations between chronic health conditions and attitudes toward using COVID-19 mHealth tools (eg, mHealth or web-based methods for tracking COVID-19 exposures, symptoms, and recommendations). METHODS: We used nationally representative data from the COVID-19 Impact Survey collected from April to June 2020 (n=10,760). Primary exposure was a history of chronic conditions, which were defined as self-reported diagnoses of cardiometabolic, respiratory, immune-related, and mental health conditions and overweight/obesity. Primary outcomes were attitudes toward COVID-19 mHealth tools, including the likelihood of using (1) a mobile phone app to track COVID-19 symptoms and receive recommendations; (2) a website to track COVID-19 symptoms, track location, and receive recommendations; and (3) an app using location data to track potential COVID-19 exposure. Outcome response options for COVID-19 mHealth tool use were extremely/very likely, moderately likely, or not too likely/not likely at all. Multinomial logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of COVID-19 mHealth tool use between people with different chronic health conditions, with not too likely/not likely at all responses used as the reference category for each outcome. We evaluated the determinants of each COVID-19 mHealth intervention using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of the 10,760 respondents, 21.8% of respondents were extremely/very likely to use a mobile phone app or a website to track their COVID-19 symptoms and receive recommendations. Additionally, 24.1% of respondents were extremely/very likely to use a mobile phone app to track their location and receive push notifications about whether they have been exposed to COVID-19. After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, and residence, adults with mental health conditions were the most likely to report being extremely/very or moderately likely to use each mHealth intervention compared to those without such conditions. Adults with respiratory-related chronic diseases were extremely/very (conditional odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.00-1.35) and moderately likely (conditional odds ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.04-1.45) to use a mobile phone app to track their location and receive push notifications about whether they have been exposed to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that attitudes toward using COVID-19 mHealth tools vary widely across modalities (eg, web-based method vs app) and chronic health conditions. These findings may inform the adoption of long-term engagement with COVID-19 apps, which is crucial for determining their potential in reducing disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among individuals with chronic health conditions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".