Protection Motivation Perspective Regarding the Use of COVID-19 Mobile Tracing Apps Among Public Users: Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to data is crucial for decision-making; this fact has become more evident during the pandemic. Data collected using mobile apps can positively influence diagnosis and treatment, the supply chain, and the staffing resources of health care facilities. Developers and health care professionals have worked to create apps that can track a person's COVID-19 status. For example, these apps can monitor positive COVID-19 test results and vaccination status. Regrettably, people may be concerned about sharing their data with government or private sector organizations that are developing apps. Understanding user perceptions is essential; without substantial user adoption and the use of mobile tracing apps, benefits cannot be achieved. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the factors that positively and negatively affect the use of COVID-19 tracing apps by examining individuals' perceptions about sharing data on mobile apps, such as testing regularity, infection, and immunization status. METHODS: The hypothesized research model was tested using a cross-sectional survey instrument. The survey contained 5 reflective constructs and 4 control variables selected after reviewing the literature and interviewing health care professionals. A digital copy of the survey was created using Qualtrics. After receiving approval, data were collected from 367 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants of any gender who were 18 years or older were considered for inclusion to complete the anonymized survey. We then analyzed the theoretical model using structural equation modeling. RESULTS: After analyzing the quality of responses, 325 participants were included. Of these 325 participants, 216 (66.5%) were male and 109 (33.5%) were female. Among the participants in the final data set, 72.6% (236/325) were employed. The results of structural equation modeling showed that perceived vulnerability (β=0.688; P<.001), self-efficacy (β=0.292; P<.001), and an individual's prior infection with COVID-19 (β=0.194; P=.002) had statistically significant positive impacts on the intention to use mobile tracing apps. Privacy concerns (β=-0.360; P<.001), risk aversion (β=-0.150; P=.09), and a family member's prior infection with COVID-19 (β=-0.139; P=.02) had statistically significant negative influences on a person's intention to use mobile tracing apps. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates that various user perceptions affect whether individuals use COVID-19 tracing apps. By working collaboratively on legislation and the messaging provided to potential users before releasing an app, developers, health care professionals, and policymakers can improve the use of tracking apps. Health care professionals need to emphasize disease vulnerability to motivate people to use mobile tracing apps, which can help reduce the spread of viruses and diseases. In addition, more work is needed at the policy-making level to protect the privacy of users, which in return can increase user engagement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".