Public Attitudes Regarding Trade-offs Between the Functional Aspects of a Contact-Confirming App for COVID-19 Infection Control and the Benefits to Individuals and Public Health: Cross-sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is expected that personal health information collected through mobile information terminals will be used to develop health strategies that benefit the public. Against this background, several countries have actively attempted to use mobile phones to control infectious diseases. These collected data, such as activity logs and contact history, are countermeasures against diseases such as COVID-19. In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare has developed and disseminated a contact-confirming app (COVID-19 Contact-Confirming Application [COCOA]) to the public, which detects and notifies individuals whether they have been near someone who had subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. However, there are concerns about leakage and misuse of the personal information collected by such information terminals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the possible trade-off between effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and infringement of personal privacy in COCOA. In addition, we analyzed whether resistance to COCOA would reduce if the app contributed to public health or if a discount was provided on mobile phone charges. METHODS: A cross-sectional, quantitative survey of Japanese citizens was conducted using Survey Monkey, a general-purpose web-based survey platform. When developing the questions for the questionnaire, we included the installation status of COCOA and recorded the anxiety stemming from the potential leakage or misuse of personal information collected for COVID-19 infection control. The respondents were asked to rate various factors to determine their perceptions on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: In total, 1058 participants were included in the final analysis. In response to the question of whether the spread of the disease was being controlled by the infection control measures taken by the government, 25.71% (272/1058) of the respondents answered that they strongly agreed or agreed. One-quarter of the respondents indicated that they had already installed COCOA. This study found that the sense of resistance to government intervention was not alleviated by the benefits provided to individuals when using the app. The only factors that were positively associated with the response absolutely opposed to use of the app, even with a discount on mobile phone use charges, were those regarding leaks and misuse of personal information, which was true for all functions (function A: odds ratio [OR] 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4; function B: OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.6; function C: OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.4). CONCLUSIONS: Public organizations need to emphasize the general benefits of allowing them to manage personal information and assure users that this information is being managed safely rather than offering incentives to individuals to provide such personal information. When collecting and using citizens' health information, it is essential that governments and other entities focus on contributing to the public good and ensuring safety rather than returning benefits to individual citizens.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".