Considerations for the Design and Implementation of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the magnitude and speed of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, achieving timely and effective manual contact tracing has been a challenging task. Early in the pandemic, contact tracing apps generated substantial enthusiasm due to their potential for automating tracing and reducing transmission rates while enabling targeted confinement strategies. However, although surveys demonstrate public interest in using such apps, their actual uptake remains limited. Their social acceptability is challenged by issues around privacy, fairness, and effectiveness, among other concerns. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the extent to which design and implementation considerations for contact tracing apps are detailed in the available literature, focusing on aspects related to participatory and responsible eHealth innovation, and synthesize recommendations that support the development of successful COVID-19 contact tracing apps and related eHealth technologies. METHODS: Searches were performed on five databases, and articles were selected based on eligibility criteria. Papers pertaining to the design, implementation, or acceptability of contact tracing apps were included. Articles published since 2019, written in English or French, and for which the full articles were available were considered eligible for analysis. To assess the scope of the knowledge found in the current literature, we used three complementary frameworks: (1) the Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies, (2) the Montreal model, and (3) the Responsible Innovation in Health Assessment Tool. RESULTS: A total of 63 articles qualified for the final analysis. Less than half of the selected articles cited the need for a participatory process (n=25, 40%), which nonetheless was the most frequently referenced item of the Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies. Regarding the Montreal model, stakeholder consultation was the most frequently described level of engagement in the development of contact tracing apps (n=24, 38%), while collaboration and partnership were cited the least (n=2, 3%). As for the Responsible Innovation in Health framework, all the articles (n=63, 100%) addressed population health, whereas only 2% (n=1) covered environmental considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies lacked fundamental aspects of eHealth development and implementation. Our results demonstrate that stakeholders of COVID-19 contact tracing apps lack important information to be able to critically appraise this eHealth innovation. This may have contributed to the modest uptake of contact tracing apps worldwide. We make evidence-informed recommendations regarding data management, communication, stakeholder engagement, user experience, and implementation strategies for the successful and responsible development of contact tracing apps.
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 | 0.056 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".