Early Perceptions of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps in German-Speaking Countries: Comparative Mixed Methods Study.
COVID-19
app
contact tracing
content analysis
digital surveillance
interview
interview study
newspaper content analysis
privacy
privacy paradox
surveillance
trust
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 02 2021
08 02 2021
Historique:
received:
05
11
2020
accepted:
09
01
2021
revised:
17
12
2020
pubmed:
28
1
2021
medline:
25
2
2021
entrez:
27
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The 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. This 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. We 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. Study 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. The 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The 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.
OBJECTIVE
This 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.
METHODS
We 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.
RESULTS
Study 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.
CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33503000
pii: v23i2e25525
doi: 10.2196/25525
pmc: PMC7872326
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e25525Informations de copyright
©Bettina Maria Zimmermann, Amelia Fiske, Barbara Prainsack, Nora Hangel, Stuart McLennan, Alena Buyx. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 08.02.2021.
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 30;7(1):e11325
pubmed: 30698535
Community Ment Health J. 2020 Oct;56(7):1202-1203
pubmed: 32734311
Comput Commun. 2021 Jan 15;166:9-18
pubmed: 33235399
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Sep 8;117(36):21851-21853
pubmed: 32820078
Public Health. 2020 Nov;188:21-31
pubmed: 33059232
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jul 9;:
pubmed: 32647047
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2020 Oct 5;:
pubmed: 33017171
Public Underst Sci. 2019 Apr;28(3):256-274
pubmed: 30583711
Ir J Med Sci. 2020 Oct 16;:
pubmed: 33063226
Hastings Cent Rep. 2020 May;50(3):43-46
pubmed: 32596893
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Feb 26;3(1):e20
pubmed: 25803705
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2017 Jul;49(4):371-378
pubmed: 28605151
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Sep 15;16(1):120
pubmed: 27630020
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Aug 28;8(8):e19857
pubmed: 32759102
Ethics Inf Technol. 2020 Oct 21;:1-10
pubmed: 33106749
Ethics Inf Technol. 2020 Oct 10;:1-5
pubmed: 33071607
Int J Inf Manage. 2020 Dec;55:102178
pubmed: 32836636
Inf Syst Front. 2020 Jul 25;:1-23
pubmed: 32837263
J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):829-834
pubmed: 32840858
Inf Process Manag. 2021 Mar;58(2):102440
pubmed: 33281273
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Oct 10;7(10):e11205
pubmed: 31603431
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2020 Nov 25;9(1):67
pubmed: 33239094
BMC Public Health. 2016 Nov 14;16(1):1158
pubmed: 27842533
J Community Health. 2020 Dec;45(6):1089-1097
pubmed: 32902813
Tob Control. 2001 Jun;10(2):145-53
pubmed: 11387535
Ethn Health. 2005 Aug;10(3):185-97
pubmed: 16087452
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jul 10;7(7):e13817
pubmed: 31293246
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 27;22(8):e21613
pubmed: 32759100
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Jul;2(7):e342-e344
pubmed: 32835192
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Nov-Dec;14(6):1631-1636
pubmed: 32892060
Int J Med Inform. 2014 Mar;83(3):210-24
pubmed: 24388129
J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):835-839
pubmed: 32840842
Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Aug;28(8):1000-1009
pubmed: 32238912
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Jul;38(7):768
pubmed: 32591763
Int J Inf Manage. 2020 Dec;55:102181
pubmed: 32836638
Med J Aust. 2020 Jul;213(2):94-94.e1
pubmed: 32570292
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Apr;22(e1):e28-33
pubmed: 25147247
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jun 18;6(6):e143
pubmed: 29914863
Ethics Inf Technol. 2020 Jul 18;:1-13
pubmed: 32837287
Comput Inform Nurs. 2018 Aug;36(8):376-382
pubmed: 29742549
Fam Community Health. 2018 Apr/Jun;41 Suppl 2 Suppl, Food Insecurity and Obesity:S15-S24
pubmed: 29461312
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 4;18(1):757
pubmed: 30286761
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jul;46(7):427-431
pubmed: 32366705
Ethics Inf Technol. 2020 Aug 24;:1-9
pubmed: 32863740
J Health Commun. 2008 Mar;13(2):181-99
pubmed: 18300068
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 3;22(12):e21572
pubmed: 33170798
Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 Dec 16;150:w20457
pubmed: 33327003
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Oct 28;3(4):e99
pubmed: 26510886