Analysis of the factors affecting the adoption and compliance of the NHS COVID-19 mobile application: A national cross-sectional survey in England
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 11, Issue: 8, Page: e053395
2021
- 20Citations
- 82Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations20
- Citation Indexes19
- 19
- CrossRef16
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures82
- Readers82
- 82
Review Description
Objectives To conduct an independent study investigating how adults perceive the usability and functionality of the 'National Health Service (NHS) COVID-19' application (app). This study aims to highlight strengths and provide recommendations to improve adoption of future contact tracing developments. Design A 60-item, anonymous online questionnaire, disseminated through social media outlets and email lists by a team from Imperial College London. Setting England. Participants Convenience sample of 1036 responses, from participants aged 18 years and above, between December 2020 and January 2021. Primary outcome measures Evaluate the compliance and public attitude towards the 'NHS COVID-19' app regarding its functionality and features. This included whether participants' expectations were met, and their thoughts on the app privacy and security. Furthermore, to distinguish how usability, perception, and adoption differed with varying demographics and user values. Results Fair compliance with the app features was identified, meeting expectations of the 62.1% of participants who stated they downloaded it after weighted analysis. However, participants finding the interface challenging were less likely to read information in the app and had a lesser understanding of its functionality. Furthermore, little understanding regarding the app's functionality and privacy concerns was a possible reason why users did not download it. A readability analysis of the text revealed information within the app was conveyed at a level that may be too complex for up to 43% of the UK population. The study highlighted issues related to the potential of false positives caused by the design choices in the 'Check-In' feature. Conclusion This study showed that while the 'NHS COVID-19' app was viewed positively, there remained issues regarding participants' perceived knowledge of app functionality, potentially affecting compliance. Therefore, we recommended improvements regarding the delivery and presentation of the app's information, and highlighted the potential need for the ability to check out of venues to reduce the number of false positive contacts.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85113178269&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053395; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34389583; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053395; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053395; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/8/e053395
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know