{"data":{"sci_version": "1.0", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:35592459", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 2, "content_hash": "sha256:cfd297db016e76dab203267bc02b0e038e9833f79b7c4f74103c1ffa1fc0d4ba", "created_at": "2026-11-01T18:14:29Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T18:58:59Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01"}, "paper": {"state": "complete", "title": "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Contact Tracing Applications: Systematic Review and Recommendations.", "doi": "10.3389/fdgth.2022.862466", "pmid": "35592459", "authors": ["Kiemute Oyibo", "Kirti Sundar Sahu", "Arlene Oetomo", "Plinio Pelegrini Morita"], "journal": "Frontiers in digital health", "year": 2022, "abstract": "Background: The emergence of new variants of COVID-19 causing breakthrough infections and the endemic potential of the coronavirus are an indication that digital contact tracing apps (CTAs) may continue to be useful for the long haul. However, the uptake of these apps in many countries around the world has been low due to several factors militating against their adoption and usage.\nObjective: In this systematic review, we set out to uncover the key factors that facilitate or militate against the adoption of CTAs, which researchers, designers and other stakeholders should focus on in future iterations to increase their adoption and effectiveness in curbing the spread of COVID-19.\nData Sources: Seven databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Service, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar, were searched between October 30 and January 31, 2020. A total of 777 articles were retrieved from the databases, with 13 of them included in the systematic review after screening.\nStudy Eligibility Criteria Participants and Intervention: The criteria for including articles in the systematic review were that they could be user studies from any country around the world, must be peer-reviewed, written in English, and focused on the perception and adoption of COVID-19 contact tracing and/or exposure notification apps. Other criteria included user study design could be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed, and must have been conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the early part of 2020.\nStudy Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Three researchers searched seven databases (three by the first author, and two each by the second and third authors) and stored the retrieved articles in a collaborative Mendeley reference management system online. After the removal of duplicates, each researcher independently screened one third of the articles based on title/abstract. Thereafter, all three researchers collectively screened articles that were in the borderline prior to undergoing a full-text review. Then, each of the three researchers conducted a full-text review of one-third of the eligible articles to decide the final articles to be included in the systematic review. Next, all three researchers went through the full text of each borderline article to determine their appropriateness and relevance. Finally, each researcher extracted the required data from one-third of the included articles into a collaborative Google spreadsheet and the first author utilized the data to write the review.\nResults: This review identified 13 relevant articles, which found 56 factors that may positively or negatively impact the adoption of CTAs. The identified factors were thematically grouped into ten categories: privacy and trust, app utility, facilitating conditions, social-cognitive factors, ethical concerns, perceived technology threats, perceived health threats, technology familiarity, persuasive design, and socio-demographic factors. Of the 56 factors, privacy concern turned out to be the most frequent factor of CTA adoption (12/13), followed by perceived benefit (7/13), perceived trust (6/13), and perceived data security risk (6/13). In the structural equation models presented by the authors of the included articles, a subset of the 56 elicited factors (e.g., perceived benefit and privacy concern) explains 16 to 77% of the variance of users' intention to download, install, or use CTAs to curb the spread of COVID-19. Potential adoption rates of CTA range from 19% (in Australia) to 75% (in France, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, and United States). Moreover, actual adoption rates range from 37% (in Australia) to 50% (in Germany). Finally, most of the studies were carried out in Europe (66.7%), followed by North America (13.3%), and Australia, Asia, and South America (6.7% each).\nConclusion: The results suggest that future CTA iterations should give priority to privacy protection through minimal data collection and transparency, improving contact tracing benefits (personal and social), and fostering trust through laudable gestures such as delegating contact tracing to public health authorities, making source code publicly available and stating who will access user data, when, how, and what it will be used for. Moreover, the results suggest that data security and tailored persuasive design, involving reward, self-monitoring, and social-location monitoring features, have the potential of improving CTA adoption. Hence, in addition to addressing issues relating to utility, privacy, trust, and data security, we recommend the integration of persuasive features into future designs of CTAs to improve their motivational appeal, adoption, and the user experience.\nSystematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021259080 PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021259080.", "claims": [{"id": "claim-data-access", "statement": "The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:35592459", "locator": "sections[45] \"Data Availability Statement\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author."}], "state": "complete"}], "gaps": []}, "experiment": {"state": "partial", "objective": "", "steps": [{"id": "read_published_estimate", "order": 1, "name": "Read the published estimate from the source", "kind": "other", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "The claim, method and evidence span published with the source article.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": ["source:pmid:35592459"], "outputs": ["the published estimate and its evidence"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "obtain_source_data", "order": 2, "name": "Obtain the source data from the named repository", "kind": "data-preparation", "state": "blocked", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "description": "The GEO series accession resolves and its sample accessions are listed. This lane did not download the dataset or read its licence.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the source data with its repository provenance"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "run_analysis", "order": 3, "name": "Run the published analysis", "kind": "analysis", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "Apply the paper's statistical method to the resolved series and compare the result with the published target.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the replicated result and its comparison"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": ["step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent"]}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:35592459", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.862466", "sha256": "sha256:b8cfbdf1f0679f7adaa50cb4f48125767198a5787df78734604d4312f18e8ff5", "bytes": 98687, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.3389/fdgth.2022.862466", "version": null, "note": "Full article fetched from PMC; the checksum covers the rendered section body, not the original XML bytes.", "structure": {"pmcid": "PMC9110790", "source": "europe_pmc_fulltext", "coverage": "whole_body", "text_hash_scope": "rendered_section_body"}}], "gaps": []}, "analysis": {"state": "absent", "methods": [], "targets": [], "gaps": ["method", "operations"]}, "capability": {"state": "complete", "requirements": [{"capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "label": "Computational analysis platform", "assay_families": ["meta_analysis", "machine_learning", "survival_analysis", "statistical_regression", "pca", "molecular_docking", "network_analysis", "differential_expression", "gwas"], "availability_state": "owned", "tier_unlocked": "R1", "candidate": "Automated Assays Laravel application and simulated adapters"}], "gaps": []}, "readiness": {"state": "blocked", "tier": "R4", "blocking_axis": "data", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "axes": {"method": {"tier": "R4", "expressible": false, "required_operations": [], "missing_operations": [], "basis": "The reader quoted the method the paper names (not named), but the corpus's method extractor could not map it onto a DSL operation, so the method is published but not expressible."}, "capability": {"tier": "R1", "capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "availability_state": "owned", "basis": "The computational analysis is owned. The physical bench the paper used is not, so a physical validation cannot be run here."}, "data": {"tier": "R4", "reachable": false, "accessions": [], "resolved_accessions": [], "statements": ["The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author."], "basis": "The paper names no accession to its source data, so the data has to come from the authors."}}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": [], "assets": ["source:pmid:35592459"], "steps": ["run_analysis"]}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [], "converters": [], "readers": [], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["data:geo:None"]}, "gaps": ["data:accession_absent"]}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"kind": "extraction_review", "reader": {"model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax", "provider_family": "minimax", "read_at": "2026-11-01T17:46:41Z", "independence": "single_reader"}, "evidence_check": {"method": null, "availability": "verbatim"}, "calls": 5, "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 23541, "completion_tokens": 763, "cached_tokens": 256}}, "human_critique": null, "stages": [{"id": "extraction", "state": "complete", "reader": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax"}], "gaps": ["review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "review.human_critique"]}, "execution": {"state": "absent", "status": "not_run", "mode": null, "runs": [], "gaps": ["execution.not_run"]}, "provenance": {"entities": [{"id": "pmid:35592459", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:35592459"}, {"id": "source:pmid:35592459", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 35592459 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity-reading-sci-2026-11-01", "type": "classification", "used": [{"id": "pmid:35592459", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:35592459"}, {"id": "source:pmid:35592459", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 35592459 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}, {"id": "activity-read-35592459", "type": "extraction", "used": ["source:pmid:35592459"], "agent": "agent:minimax-reader"}, {"id": "activity-resolve-None", "type": "accession_resolution", "used": ["data:geo:None"], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}], "agents": [{"id": "agent:corpus-assay-engine", "type": "software", "label": "Corpus assay engine"}, {"id": "agent:minimax-reader", "type": "software", "label": "MiniMax literature reader"}], "source_run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01", "dsl_catalogue_fingerprint": "343fb30756ba6ec3", "capability_table_fingerprint": "2cb3e42f047d2ecf", "snapshot_id": "ba34b49490d9bfaf"}, "lineage": {"parent_id": "pmid:35592459", "parent_hash": "sha256:11ece0ceaa675033cfe3969c3a612da1d81a2865528d7dd85bc360a8c75d93a3", "fork_of": null, "generation": 1}, "gaps": ["execution.not_run", "method", "operations", "review.human_critique", "review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent"]},"meta":{"api_version":"v1","automation_ladder_snapshot":"ba34b49490d9bfaf","automation_ladder_caveats":["Method extraction is rule-based and has no hand-judged accuracy sample. Evidence bands order textual support; method agreement intervals are null (n=0), never probabilities. Work-type validation does not validate methods.","Operation coverage describes only explicitly named methods. It does not prove a complete protocol, compatible parameters, successful compilation or re-execution. Unrecognised or ambiguous methods require review.","Data reachability is a textual accession or public-data statement. No dataset was downloaded or checked for access, completeness or licence.","Capabilities are planning states seeded from the dated equipment register. No bench ownership, completed quote or partner booking is inferred. Procurement counts are dependencies, not guaranteed replications or financial returns.","Tier and blocker counts are deterministic assessments of this corpus, not measured agreement. R3 is reserved for procurement; unresolved methods and data require human work (R4). The most restrictive axis wins, with capability, method, data as tie-breaks. Resolving one blocker can leave another at the same tier."],"engine":"corpus_engine","engine_provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","run_id":"run-20261023T122449232913","source":"esearch","source_detail":"PubMed mirror biomed_pubmed (read-only)","run_status":"complete","imported_at":"2026-11-03T20:16:52+00:00","generated_at":"2026-11-04T03:38:25+00:00","total_papers":5529,"total_assays_tracked":29,"automatable_assay_families":6,"validated":true,"caveat_count":9,"blocking_caveats":5,"caveats":[{"code":"low_evidence_dominates","basis":["4,152 of 5,529 classifications (75.1%) matched no cue evidence and sit at the 0.05 floor.","34 of 230 data_only calls (14.8%) are in that group."],"claim":"Work type and confidence bands","gloss":"Most records were classified from their title and framing alone, with assay-cue coverage at zero.","detail":"Most classifications in this run rest on no matched evidence at all. At the evidence floor the work type comes from title framing and a fixed prior, not from anything in the paper, so the published work-type split should be read as a rough triage signal rather than a measured distribution. The impact is bounded but not removed: since 2026-10-23 the engine excludes floor-confidence records from the shortlist entirely and publishes them separately as held out, so the recommendation is unaffected even though the census is.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"runtime_is_modelled","basis":["Runtime is summed from published per-assay hour figures. Timing awaits the first executed replication.","4,407 of 5,529 records (79.7%) model to 0.00 hours because no assay was matched, which the ranking then reads as \"cheapest\".","0 of 10 shortlisted records carry a 0.00-hour estimate."],"claim":"Estimated replication runtime","gloss":"The hour figures are estimates built from assay mentions; timing awaits the first executed replication.","detail":"The hour figures are a cost model derived from the bench steps implied by each matched assay family. The first executed replication will supply measured timing. Records without an assay match currently receive a zero-hour model value.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"signal_score_without_citations","basis":["5,529 of 5,529 records (100.0%) have no citation count from the source metadata."],"claim":"Signal score","gloss":"The signal score uses publication-type weight because the mirror supplied zero citation counts.","detail":"The source supplied no citation counts for any record in this run, so the signal score is publication-type weight only. The citation term of the ranking is inert here, and the shortlist is ordered by publication type alone.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"abstract_absent","basis":["1,667 of 5,529 records (30.2%) carry no abstract at all."],"claim":"Evidence base for classification","gloss":"Some records contain a title and publication type only, defining the available classification evidence.","detail":"Where the mirror contains a title and publication types only, those fields define the classifier evidence. A methods section is required for fuller automated and human review.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"},{"code":"classifier_agreement_measured","basis":["Published two-way decision agreement 77.7% (310 of 399 decidable records) from a stratified hand-check of 438 real records.","Three-way diagnostic agreement 73.9% (288 of 390 decidable records).","data_only agreement 75.2% (100 of 133 decidable).","48 record(s) could not be decided from title and abstract and were excluded from the denominator.","56 analysis-only records were published under another work type, so the data_only share is not an upper bound."],"claim":"Published automatable decision","gloss":"This figure has been checked against a human reading the same papers, so we know how often it is right.","detail":"The published automatable / not-automatable distribution comes from a rule-based classifier that was hand-checked against a fixed ground-truth definition. The agreement rates below are measured, not estimated. The three-way work type remains a diagnostic and is reported separately.","status":"measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"llm_comparison_not_measured","basis":["rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f produced 5,529 of 5,529 classifications.","Measured on 438 labelled records; these are RULE-BASED figures, not model results."],"claim":"Rule-based versus LLM agreement","gloss":"Every number here is the rule engine’s own. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","detail":"The published two-way decision agreed with a human reading on 310 of 399 decidable records (77.7%). The diagnostic three-way label agreed on 288 of 390 decidable records (73.9%). Every percentage in this run belongs to the rule engine. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","status":"not_measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"confidence_is_a_band","basis":["low band: 135 of 210 hand-judged records were correct, 64.3% [57.6, 70.5] (95% CI).","medium band: 80 of 104 hand-judged records were correct, 76.9% [68.0, 84.0] (95% CI).","high band: 73 of 76 hand-judged records were correct, 96.0% [89.0, 98.7] (95% CI).","A fitted calibrated probability was built, measured and withdrawn: it overstated held-out accuracy and reorders nothing."],"claim":"Confidence band and evidence score","gloss":"The confidence band carries a measured accuracy interval; 0.85 represents relative rank strength.","detail":"Confidence on this run is a BAND plus its measured accuracy interval. The number stored alongside each record is a monotone evidence score that orders records; 0.85 represents relative rank strength. A fitted probability was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy. Threshold on the band.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"three_way_split_is_diagnostic","basis":["The corpus is published at the two-way decision: automatable or not-automatable. The three-way split (data_only / physical / mixed) is published as a diagnostic with its measured reliability attached, not as a claim, because the rule engine's `mixed` call cannot be defended.","The engine called 22 record(s) mixed; 10 matched the human judgement (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9-65.3).","The engine's `mixed` call is right on 10/22 hand-judged records (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9%-65.3%); a constant `physical` guess scores 36.4%.","The engine's `mixed` call does not reliably beat a constant `physical` guess on the hand-judged records it labels mixed.","The sign of that difference flips between two independent samples, so the three-way refinement is not demonstrably informative.","The mixed stratum contributes a disproportionate share of errors relative to its size.","At title-only depth the physical/mixed split collapses: a title says that work was done, not whether it was also analysed."],"claim":"The published decision is two-way","gloss":"The three-way split is shown for diagnosis only. The published split is two ways.","detail":"Count and filter the corpus on automatable versus not-automatable. The data_only / physical / mixed split remains an internal engine diagnostic because the mixed call has lower measured reliability.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"automatable_flag_unproven","basis":["6 of 29 assay families are marked automatable now: meta_analysis, machine_learning, survival_analysis, pca, molecular_docking, differential_expression.","The flag is a rule over assay family and work type; validation begins with the first executed replication.","It inherits the 75.2% data_only agreement rate, because the flag requires the record to be analysis-only."],"claim":"Automatable now","gloss":"This flag marks assay families the rules classify as data-only. The first executed replication will validate it.","detail":"This flag marks families the rules consider replicable from data alone. Its validity depends on the analysis-only classification and will be measured through an executed replication.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"}],"confidence_policy":"band_with_measured_interval","confidence_contract":{"policy":"band_with_measured_interval","summary":"Confidence is reported as a BAND with a measured accuracy interval. The raw evidence score supplies monotone ordering. A fitted point estimate was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy.","evidence_score":"A monotone evidence score in [0,1] built from cue mass, axis separation and text coverage. Use it to order records. Interpret 0.85 as relative rank strength.","confidence_band":"low | medium | high. Consumers threshold on this value.","band_accuracy":"Wilson 95% interval on the measured agreement of the hand-judged records in this band.","calibrated_confidence":"WITHDRAWN. Reintroduction requires held-out evidence demonstrating reliable estimates across every bin."},"band_accuracy":{"low":{"n":210,"low":0.576,"band":"low","high":0.7046,"agree":135,"accuracy":0.6429},"high":{"n":76,"low":0.8903,"band":"high","high":0.9865,"agree":73,"accuracy":0.9605},"medium":{"n":104,"low":0.6795,"band":"medium","high":0.8397,"agree":80,"accuracy":0.7692}},"provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","lexicon_id":"99e1195c7d6f","contract_published_at":"2026-10-23T12:25:29.022232+00:00","confidence_is_band":true,"confidence_is_probability":false,"decision_taxonomy":"two_way","decidable_fraction_two_way":0.8854,"decidable_fraction_two_way_low":0.8565,"decidable_fraction_two_way_high":0.9143,"decidable_fraction_three_way":0.8586,"decidable_fraction_three_way_low":0.8287,"decidable_fraction_three_way_high":0.8884,"decidable_population":5529,"validation_sample_size":438,"three_way_cost_fraction":0.0268,"three_way_cost_records":148,"decision_counts":{"automatable":230,"not_automatable":5299},"decision_split":{"automatable":{"count":230,"share":0.04159884246699222},"not_automatable":{"count":5299,"share":0.9584011575330078}},"diagnostic_work_type_counts":{"mixed":24,"physical":5275,"data_only":230}}}