Health Care Students’ Knowledge of and Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices Toward the French COVID-19 App: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study

  1. Ilaria Montagni
  2. Nicolas Roussel
  3. Rodolphe Thiébaut
  4. Christophe Tzourio

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Many countries worldwide have developed mobile phone apps capable of supporting instantaneous contact tracing to control the COVID-19 pandemic. In France, a few people have downloaded and are using the StopCovid contact tracing app. Students in the health domain are of particular concern in terms of app uptake. Exploring their use and opinions about the app can inform improvements and diffusion of StopCovid among young people.

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate health care students’ knowledge of and attitudes, beliefs, and practices (KABP) toward the StopCovid app.

Methods

A field survey was conducted among 318 students at the health sciences campus of the University of Bordeaux, France, between September 25 and October 16, 2020. A quota sampling method was used, and descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were performed.

Results

Of the 318 respondents, 77.3% (n=246) had heard about the app, but only 11.3% (n=36) had downloaded it, and 4.7% (n=15) were still using it at the time of the survey. Among the 210 participants who had heard about the app but did not download it, the main reasons for not using the app were a belief that it was not effective given its limited diffusion (n=37, 17.6%), a lack of interest (n=37, 17.6%), and distrust in the data security and fear of being geolocated (n=33, 15.7%). Among the 72 students who had not heard of the app and were given a brief description of its functioning and confidentiality policy, 52.7% (n=38) said they would use it. Participants reported that the main solution for increasing the use of the app would be better communication about it (227/318, 71.4%).

Conclusions

Even among health students, the contact tracing app was poorly used. The findings suggest that improved communication about its advantages and simplicity of use as well as clarifying false beliefs about it could help improve uptake.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.2196/26399
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218214: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Inclusion criteria were: being aged >18 years, being a student in the health domain enrolled at the University of Bordeaux, and providing oral informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All data from the paper questionnaires were entered by the student interviewers in a digital database through the EpiData® software version 3.1.
    EpiData®
    suggested: (EpiData Software, RRID:SCR_008485)
    The data were analyzed with SAS® version 9.3(SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
    SAS®
    suggested: (SASqPCR, RRID:SCR_003056)
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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:
    Strengths and Limitations: This was one of the first studies reporting data on students’ KABP about a contact tracing app in a pandemic context. Previous studies have explored the intention of downloading this type of apps as a general idea, but were not based on a developed and currently diffused app (Altmann et al., 2020; Jonker et al., 2020; Kaspar, 2020; Walrave et al., 2020). Reasons for downloading and using the app were explored in depth to inform future steps to increase its diffusion. The specific focus on students was another strong point of this study: young people are especially concerned by the transmission of the virus in subsequent coronavirus waves. Mobilizing this population to adopt the app is key in this particular epidemiological context. Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample. More than 300 students in the health domain were interviewed among a total population of 18,000 students. Findings cannot be generalized, but the sample was recruited according to quota sampling in order to be, as much as possible, representative of sex, age, specific field of study (from medicine to pharmacy) and year of study. This might increase the representativeness of the interviewed population group. The small sample also justifies the few significant differences that were identified. This is confirmed by the low statistical powers that were obtained following performed statistical tests (< 0.50). The new version of the StopCovid app: StopCovid has recen...

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.2196/preprints.26399
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218214v2 on medRxiv
  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218214v1 on medRxiv