Public attitudes towards COVID‐19 contact tracing apps: A UK‐based focus group study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
During the 2020 COVID‐19 pandemic, one of the key components of many countries’ strategies to reduce the spread of the virus is contact tracing.
Objective
To explore public attitudes to a COVID‐19 contact tracing app in the United Kingdom.
Setting
Online video‐conferencing.
Participants
27 participants, UK residents aged 18 years and older.
Methods
Qualitative study consisting of six focus groups carried out between 1st‐12th May, 2020 (39‐50 days into the UK ‘lockdown’).
Results
Participants were divided as to whether or not they felt they would use the app. Analysis revealed five themes: (1) lack of information and misconceptions surrounding COVID‐19 contact tracing apps; (2) concerns over privacy; (3) concerns over stigma; (4)concerns over uptake; and (5) contact tracing as the ‘greater good’. Concerns over privacy, uptake and stigma were particularly significant amongst those stated they will not be using the app, and the view that the app is for the ‘greater good’ was particularly significant amongst those who stated they will be using the app. One of the most common misconceptions about the app was that it could allow users to specifically identify and map COVID‐19 cases amongst their contacts and in their vicinity.
Conclusions
Our participants were torn over whether digital contact tracing is a good idea or not, and views were heavily influenced by moral reasoning.
Patient or Public Contribution
No patients were involved in this study. The public were not involved in the development of the research questions, research design or outcome measures. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Summary results were disseminated via email to participants prior to publication for feedback and comment.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.14.20102269: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data were analysed in NVivo (version 11.4.3, QRS). NVivosuggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:It is of course a limitation of this study that its sample size, which is small in relation to such large quantitative …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.14.20102269: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Data were analysed in NVivo (version 11.4.3, QRS). NVivosuggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:It is of course a limitation of this study that its sample size, which is small in relation to such large quantitative surveys, does not permit our findings to be readily generalized to the UK population as a whole, and so the findings on the proportions of who plans to use the app or not should be treated cautiously and followed up with further research. This however is a limitation inherent to all qualitative research and not specifically to the current study. The contribution of this study is its ability to shed light on the underlying reasons and beliefs that account for people’s views on the app and which ultimately shape their decision of whether or not to use it. Concerns over stigma stemmed from a fundamental misconception that the app could enable its users to identify COVID-19 cases amongst their contacts or even synchronously map cases near them. It is worth noting that, despite these misconceptions, such findings imply that COVID-19 may be, for some, becoming a stigmatised disease. Future research will explore the potential stigmatization of COVID-19 sufferers in more depth and over time. The main implication of relevance to the present study is that the public may not be adequately informed as to what the app entails. Improved communication regarding the purpose and nature of the app will likely lead to increased use of the app (see implications section below). Concerns over uptake were framed in terms of social inequalities and cultural norms around state interv...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
