Modeling Trust in COVID-19 Contact-Tracing Apps Using the Human-Computer Trust Scale: Online Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes in technology use worldwide, both socially and economically. This pandemic crisis has brought additional measures such as contact-tracing apps (CTAs) to help fight against spread of the virus. Unfortunately, the low adoption rate of these apps affected their success. There could be many reasons for the low adoption, including concerns of security and privacy, along with reported issues of trust in CTAs. Some concerns are related with how CTAs could be used as surveillance tools or their potential threats to privacy as they involve health data. For example, in Estonia, the CTA named HOIA had approximately 250,000 downloads in the middle of January 2021. However, in 2021, only 4.7% of the population used HOIA as a COVID-19 CTA. The reasons for the low adoption include lack of competency, and privacy and security concerns. This lower adoption and the lack of trustworthiness persist despite efforts of the European Union in building ethics and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI)-based apps. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand how to measure trust in health technologies. Specifically, we assessed the usefulness of the Human-Computer Trust Scale (HCTS) to measure Estonians' trust in the HOIA app and the causes for this lack of trust. METHODS: The main research question was: Can the HCTS be used to assess citizens' perception of trust in health technologies? We established four hypotheses that were tested with a survey. We used a convenience sample for data collection, including sharing the questionnaire on social network sites and using the snowball method to reach all potential HOIA users in the Estonian population. RESULTS: Among the 78 respondents, 61 had downloaded the HOIA app with data on usage patterns. However, 20 of those who downloaded the app admitted that it was never opened despite most claiming to regularly use mobile apps. The main reasons included not understanding how it works, and privacy and security concerns. Significant correlations were found between participants' trust in CTAs in general and their perceived trust in the HOIA app regarding three attributes: competency (P<.001), risk perception (P<.001), and reciprocity (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that trust in the HOIA app among Estonian residents did affect their predisposition to use the app. Participants did not generally believe that HOIA could help to control the spread of the virus. The result of this work is limited to HOIA and health apps that use similar contact-tracing methods. However, the findings can contribute to gaining a broader understanding and awareness of the need for designing trustworthy technologies. Moreover, this work can help to provide design recommendations that ensure trustworthiness in CTAs, and the ability of AI to use highly sensitive data and serve society.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".