Continued Use of Contact-Tracing Apps in the United States and the United Kingdom: Insights From a Comparative Study Through the Lens of the Health Belief Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, contact-tracing (CT) mobile apps were developed and deployed to identify and notify individuals who have exposure to the virus. However, the effectiveness of these apps depends not only on their adoption by the general population but also on their continued use in the long term. Limited research has investigated the facilitators of and barriers to the continued use of CT apps. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to examine factors influencing the continued use intentions of CT apps based on the health belief model. In addition, we investigated the differences between users and nonusers and between the US and UK populations. METHODS: We administered a survey in the United States and the United Kingdom. Respondents included individuals who had previously used CT technologies and those without experience. We used the structural equation modeling technique to validate the proposed research model and hypotheses. RESULTS: Analysis of data collected from 362 individuals showed that perceived benefits, self-efficacy, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, and cues to action positively predicted the continued use intentions of CT apps, while perceived barriers could reduce them. We observed few differences between the US and UK groups; the only exception was the effect of COVID-19 threat susceptibility, which was significant for the UK group but not for the US group. Finally, we found that the only significant difference between users and nonusers was related to perceived barriers, which may not influence nonusers' continued use intentions but significantly reduce experienced users' intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have implications for technological design and policy. These insights can potentially help governments, technology companies, and media outlets to create strategies and policies to promote app adoption for new users and sustain continued use for existing users in the long run.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".