Dataset Information

Considerations for the Design and Implementation of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Given the magnitude and speed of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, achieving timely and effective manual contact tracing has been a challenging task. Early in the pandemic, contact tracing apps generated substantial enthusiasm due to their potential for automating tracing and reducing transmission rates while enabling targeted confinement strategies. However, although surveys demonstrate public interest in using such apps, their actual uptake remains limited. Their social acceptability is challenged by issues around privacy, fairness, and effectiveness, among other concerns.

Objective

This study aims to examine the extent to which design and implementation considerations for contact tracing apps are detailed in the available literature, focusing on aspects related to participatory and responsible eHealth innovation, and synthesize recommendations that support the development of successful COVID-19 contact tracing apps and related eHealth technologies.

Methods

Searches were performed on five databases, and articles were selected based on eligibility criteria. Papers pertaining to the design, implementation, or acceptability of contact tracing apps were included. Articles published since 2019, written in English or French, and for which the full articles were available were considered eligible for analysis. To assess the scope of the knowledge found in the current literature, we used three complementary frameworks: (1) the Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies, (2) the Montreal model, and (3) the Responsible Innovation in Health Assessment Tool.

Results

A total of 63 articles qualified for the final analysis. Less than half of the selected articles cited the need for a participatory process (n=25, 40%), which nonetheless was the most frequently referenced item of the Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies. Regarding the Montreal model, stakeholder consultation was the most frequently described level of engagement in the development of contact tracing apps (n=24, 38%), while collaboration and partnership were cited the least (n=2, 3%). As for the Responsible Innovation in Health framework, all the articles (n=63, 100%) addressed population health, whereas only 2% (n=1) covered environmental considerations.

Conclusions

Most studies lacked fundamental aspects of eHealth development and implementation. Our results demonstrate that stakeholders of COVID-19 contact tracing apps lack important information to be able to critically appraise this eHealth innovation. This may have contributed to the modest uptake of contact tracing apps worldwide. We make evidence-informed recommendations regarding data management, communication, stakeholder engagement, user experience, and implementation strategies for the successful and responsible development of contact tracing apps.

SUBMITTER: Osmanlliu E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8191727 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 digital contact-tracing apps were created to assist public health authorities in curbing the pandemic. These apps require users' permission to access specific functions on their mobile phones, such as geolocation, Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connections, or personal data, to work correctly. As these functions have privacy repercussions, it is essential to establish how contact-tracing apps respect users' privacy.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically map existing contact-tracing apps and evaluate the permissions required and their privacy policies. Specifically, we evaluated the type of permissions, the privacy policies' readability, and the information included in them.MethodsWe used custom Google searches and existing lists of contact-tracing apps to identify potentially eligible apps between May 2020 and November 2021. We included contact-tracing or exposure notification apps with a Google Play webpage from which we extracted app characteristics (eg, sponsor, number of installs, and ratings). We used Exodus Privacy to systematically extract the number of permissions and classify them as dangerous or normal. We computed a Permission Accumulated Risk Score representing the threat level to the user's privacy. We assessed the privacy policies' readability and evaluated their content using a 13-item checklist, which generated a Privacy Transparency Index. We explored the relationships between app characteristics, Permission Accumulated Risk Score, and Privacy Transparency Index using correlations, chi-square tests, or ANOVAs.ResultsWe identified 180 contact-tracing apps across 152 countries, states, or territories. We included 85.6% (154/180) of apps with a working Google Play page, most of which (132/154, 85.7%) had a privacy policy document. Most apps were developed by governments (116/154, 75.3%) and totaled 264.5 million installs. The average rating on Google Play was 3.5 (SD 0.7). Across the 154 apps, we identified 94 unique permissions, 18% (17/94) of which were dangerous, and 30 trackers. The average Permission Accumulated Risk Score was 22.7 (SD 17.7; range 4-74, median 16) and the average Privacy Transparency Index was 55.8 (SD 21.7; range 5-95, median 55). Overall, the privacy documents were difficult to read (median grade level 12, range 7-23); 67% (88/132) of these mentioned that the apps collected personal identifiers. The Permission Accumulated Risk Score was negatively associated with the average App Store ratings (r=-0.20; P=.03; 120/154, 77.9%) and Privacy Transparency Index (r=-0.25; P<.001; 132/154, 85.7%), suggesting that the higher the risk to one's data, the lower the apps' ratings and transparency index.ConclusionsMany contact-tracing apps were developed covering most of the planet but with a relatively low number of installs. Privacy-preserving apps scored high in transparency and App Store ratings, suggesting that some users appreciate these apps. Nevertheless, privacy policy documents were difficult to read for an average audience. Therefore, we recommend following privacy-preserving and transparency principles to improve contact-tracing uptake while making privacy documents more readable for a wider public.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the enormous potential of mobile health (mHealth) apps for COVID-19 contact tracing, the adoption rate in most countries remains low. Thus, the objective of the current study is to identify facilitators and barriers of mHealth apps adoption for COVID-19 contact tracing based on existing studies.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of mHealth studies before December 2021 that evaluate facilitators and barriers associated with the adoption of mHealth apps for COVID-19 contact tracing. We assessed the risk of bias for all included studies using the Cochrane tool. We based our narrative synthesis on the facilitators-barriers to the adoption of mHealth framework comprising seven key factors.ResultsA total of 27 articles were reviewed from 16 countries representing high income countries (France, German, Italy, United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Singapore, Belgium, Republic Ireland, Netherland, Poland, and Japan), middle-income countries (Fiji), and low-middle income countries (India). We identified the main facilitators of mHealth adoption: perceived risks to COVID-19, trust, perceived benefit, social norm, and technology readiness. The main barriers of mHealth adoption were data privacy/security concerns. Among sociodemographic factors, females, lower education, lower-income, and older individual are barriers to adoption in low-middle income countries, while most of those factors were not significantly associated with adoption in a high-income country.ConclusionThe findings imply that resolving data privacy/security issues while developing trust, perceived benefits, social norms, and technology preparedness could be effective strategies for increasing adoption intentions and app use among the general public. In low-middle-income countries, addressing digital divide is critical to the app's adoption.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=249500, identifier RD42021249500 (PROSPERO).

Project description:BackgroundThe main German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) have implemented digital contact tracing apps to assist the authorities with COVID-19 containment strategies. Low user rates for these apps can affect contact tracing and, thus, its usefulness in controlling the spread of the novel coronavirus.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the early perceptions of people living in the German-speaking countries and compare them with the frames portrayed in the newspapers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 159 participants of the SolPan project. Of those, 110 participants discussed contact tracing apps and were included in this study. We analyzed articles regarding contact tracing apps from 12 newspapers in the German-speaking countries.ResultsStudy participants perceived and newspaper coverage in all German-speaking countries framed contact tracing apps as governmental surveillance tools and embedded them in a broader context of technological surveillance. Participants identified trust in authorities, respect of individual privacy, voluntariness, and temporary use of contact tracing apps as prerequisites for democratic compatibility. Newspapers commonly referenced the use of such apps in Asian countries, emphasizing the differences in privacy regulation among these countries.ConclusionsThe uptake of digital contact tracing apps in German-speaking countries may be undermined due to privacy risks that are not compensated by potential benefits and are rooted in a deeper skepticism towards digital tools. When authorities plan to implement new digital tools and practices in the future, they should be very transparent and proactive in communicating their objectives and the role of the technology-and how it differs from other, possibly similar, tools. It is also important to publicly address ethical, legal, and social issues related to such technologies prior to their launch.