Designing Better Exposure Notification Apps: The Role of Persuasive Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital contact tracing apps have been deployed worldwide to limit the spread of COVID-19 during this pandemic and to facilitate the lifting of public health restrictions. However, due to privacy-, trust-, and design-related issues, the apps are yet to be widely adopted. This calls for an intervention to enable a critical mass of users to adopt them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to provide guidelines to design contact tracing apps as persuasive technologies to make them more appealing and effective. METHODS: We identified the limitations of the current contact tracing apps on the market using the Government of Canada's official exposure notification app (COVID Alert) as a case study. Particularly, we identified three interfaces in the COVID Alert app where the design can be improved. The interfaces include the no exposure status interface, exposure interface, and diagnosis report interface. We propose persuasive technology design guidelines to make them more motivational and effective in eliciting the desired behavior change. RESULTS: Apart from trust and privacy concerns, we identified the minimalist and nonmotivational design of exposure notification apps as the key design-related factors that contribute to the current low uptake. We proposed persuasive strategies such as self-monitoring of daily contacts and exposure time to make the no exposure and exposure interfaces visually appealing and motivational. Moreover, we proposed social learning, praise, and reward to increase the diagnosis report interface's effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that exposure notification apps can be designed as persuasive technologies by incorporating key persuasive features, which have the potential to improve uptake, use, COVID-19 diagnosis reporting, and compliance with social distancing guidelines.
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 | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".