• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

采用 COVID-19 接触者追踪应用程序的捷克青年:跨文化复制研究。

Adoption of a COVID-19 Contact Tracing App by Czech Youth: Cross-Cultural Replication Study.

机构信息

Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, Prague University of Economics and Business, Prague, Czech Republic.

出版信息

JMIR Hum Factors. 2023 Nov 16;10:e45481. doi: 10.2196/45481.

DOI:10.2196/45481
PMID:37971804
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10655852/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

During the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the role of digital contact tracing (DCT) intensified. However, the uptake of this technology expectedly differed among age cohorts and national cultures. Various conceptual tools were introduced to strengthen DCT research from a theoretical perspective. However, little has been done to compare theory-supported findings across different cultural contexts and age cohorts.

OBJECTIVE

Building on the original study conducted in Belgium in April 2020 and theoretically underpinned by the Health Belief Model (HBM), this study attempted to confirm the predictors of DCT adoption in a cultural environment different from the original setting, that is, the Czech Republic. In addition, by using brief qualitative evidence, it aimed to shed light on the possible limitations of the HBM in the examined context and to propose certain extensions of the HBM.

METHODS

A Czech version of the original instrument was administered to a convenience sample of young (aged 18-29 y) Czech adults in November 2020. After filtering, 519 valid responses were obtained and included in the quantitative data analysis, which used structural equation modeling and followed the proposed structure of the relationships among the HBM constructs. Furthermore, a qualitative thematic analysis of the free-text answers was conducted to provide additional insights about the model's validity in the given context.

RESULTS

The proposed measurement model exhibited less optimal fit (root mean square error of approximation=0.065, 90% CI 0.060-0.070) than in the original study (root mean square error of approximation=0.036, 90% CI 0.033-0.039). Nevertheless, perceived benefits and perceived barriers were confirmed as the main, statistically significant predictors of DCT uptake, consistent with the original study (β=.60, P<.001 and β=-.39; P<.001, respectively). Differently from the original study, self-efficacy was not a significant predictor in the strict statistical sense (β=.12; P=.003). In addition, qualitative analysis demonstrated that in the given cohort, perceived barriers was the most frequent theme (166/354, 46.9% of total codes). Under this category, psychological fears and concerns was a subtheme, notably diverging from the original operationalization of the perceived barriers construct. In a similar sense, a role for social influence in DCT uptake processes was suggested by some respondents (12/354, 1.7% of total codes). In summary, the quantitative and qualitative results indicated that the proposed quantitative model seemed to be of limited value in the examined context.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should focus on reconceptualizing the 2 underperforming constructs (ie, perceived severity and cues to action) by considering the qualitative findings. This study also provided actionable insights for policy makers and app developers to mitigate DCT adoption issues in the event of a future pandemic caused by unknown viral agents.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e63/10655852/5a8277863729/humanfactors_v10i1e45481_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e63/10655852/5a8277863729/humanfactors_v10i1e45481_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e63/10655852/5a8277863729/humanfactors_v10i1e45481_fig1.jpg
摘要

背景

在全球 COVID-19 大流行期间,数字接触追踪(DCT)的作用得到了加强。然而,这项技术的采用情况在不同的年龄组和国家文化中预计会有所不同。各种概念工具被引入,从理论角度加强 DCT 研究。然而,在不同的文化背景和年龄组之间比较理论支持的发现方面,几乎没有什么工作。

目的

本研究以 2020 年 4 月在比利时进行的原始研究为基础,并以健康信念模型(HBM)为理论基础,试图在与原始研究不同的文化环境(捷克共和国)中验证 DCT 采用的预测因素。此外,通过使用简短的定性证据,旨在阐明 HBM 在研究背景下的可能局限性,并提出对 HBM 的某些扩展。

方法

在 2020 年 11 月,对年轻(18-29 岁)捷克成年人的便利样本进行了原始工具的捷克语版本测试。经过筛选,共获得 519 份有效回复,用于定量数据分析,该分析使用结构方程建模,并遵循 HBM 结构之间关系的建议结构。此外,对自由文本答案进行了主题定性分析,以提供有关该模型在特定背景下有效性的更多见解。

结果

与原始研究相比(均方根误差逼近值=0.036,90%CI 0.033-0.039),所提出的测量模型的拟合度较差(均方根误差逼近值=0.065,90%CI 0.060-0.070)。然而,与原始研究一致,感知益处和感知障碍被确认为 DCT 采用的主要、统计学显著预测因素(β=0.60,P<.001 和β=-0.39;P<.001)。与原始研究不同的是,自我效能感在严格的统计学意义上不是一个显著的预测因素(β=0.12;P=.003)。此外,定性分析表明,在给定的队列中,感知障碍是最常见的主题(总代码的 46.9%,即 166/354)。在这个类别下,心理恐惧和担忧是一个亚主题,与原始感知障碍结构的操作化明显不同。同样,一些受访者提出了社会影响在 DCT 采用过程中的作用(总代码的 1.7%,即 12/354)。总之,定量和定性结果表明,在所研究的背景下,拟定量模型的似乎价值有限。

结论

未来的研究应专注于通过考虑定性发现,重新概念化两个表现不佳的结构(即感知严重程度和线索作用)。本研究还为政策制定者和应用程序开发者提供了可操作的见解,以减轻未来由未知病毒引起的大流行期间 DCT 采用问题。

相似文献

1
Adoption of a COVID-19 Contact Tracing App by Czech Youth: Cross-Cultural Replication Study.采用 COVID-19 接触者追踪应用程序的捷克青年:跨文化复制研究。
JMIR Hum Factors. 2023 Nov 16;10:e45481. doi: 10.2196/45481.
2
Adoption of a Contact Tracing App for Containing COVID-19: A Health Belief Model Approach.采用接触者追踪应用程序控制 COVID-19:健康信念模型方法。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Sep 1;6(3):e20572. doi: 10.2196/20572.
3
Effects of User Experience in Automated Information Processing on Perceived Usefulness of Digital Contact-Tracing Apps: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.自动化信息处理中的用户体验对数字接触追踪应用程序感知有用性的影响:横断面调查研究。
JMIR Hum Factors. 2024 Jun 25;11:e53940. doi: 10.2196/53940.
4
Adaptation and Utilization of a Postmarket Evaluation Model for Digital Contact Tracing Mobile Health Tools in the United States: Observational Cross-sectional Study.美国数字接触者追踪移动健康工具的上市后评估模型的调整和利用:观察性横断面研究。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2023 Mar 22;9:e38633. doi: 10.2196/38633.
5
Utilizing Health Behavior Change and Technology Acceptance Models to Predict the Adoption of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Cross-sectional Survey Study.利用健康行为改变和技术接受模型预测 COVID-19 接触者追踪应用程序的采用:横断面调查研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 19;23(5):e25447. doi: 10.2196/25447.
6
Understanding Trust and Changes in Use After a Year With the NHS COVID-19 Contact Tracing App in the United Kingdom: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study.理解信任和在英国使用 NHS COVID-19 接触者追踪应用程序一年后的变化:纵向混合方法研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Oct 14;24(10):e40558. doi: 10.2196/40558.
7
Acceptability of App-Based Contact Tracing for COVID-19: Cross-Country Survey Study.基于应用程序的 COVID-19 接触者追踪的可接受性:跨国调查研究。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Aug 28;8(8):e19857. doi: 10.2196/19857.
8
Ready or Not for Contact Tracing? Investigating the Adoption Intention of COVID-19 Contact-Tracing Technology Using an Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model.准备好进行接触者追踪了吗?使用扩展的统一技术接受和使用理论模型调查 COVID-19 接触者追踪技术的采用意愿。
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2021 Jun;24(6):377-383. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0483. Epub 2020 Oct 5.
9
The Roles of General Health and COVID-19 Proximity in Contact Tracing App Usage: Cross-sectional Survey Study.一般健康状况和与 COVID-19 的接近程度在接触者追踪应用程序使用中的作用:横断面调查研究。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Aug 18;7(8):e27892. doi: 10.2196/27892.
10
Public Adoption of and Trust in the NHS COVID-19 Contact Tracing App in the United Kingdom: Quantitative Online Survey Study.英国国民保健制度 (NHS) COVID-19 接触者追踪应用程序的公众采用和信任:定量在线调查研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Sep 17;23(9):e29085. doi: 10.2196/29085.

本文引用的文献

1
Normative positions towards COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: findings from a large-scale qualitative study in nine European countries.对新冠病毒接触者追踪应用程序的规范性立场:来自九个欧洲国家的大规模定性研究结果
Crit Public Health. 2021 Jun 2;32(1):5-18. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2021.1925634. eCollection 2022.
2
Why Individuals Do (Not) Use Contact Tracing Apps: A Health Belief Model Perspective on the German Corona-Warn-App.为何个人使用(或不使用)接触者追踪应用程序:基于健康信念模型对德国新冠预警应用程序的探讨
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Feb 15;11(4):583. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11040583.
3
Breaking the chain with individual gain? Investigating the moral intensity of COVID-19 digital contact tracing.
以个人利益打破传播链?调查COVID-19数字接触者追踪的道德强度。
Comput Human Behav. 2023 Jun;143:107699. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107699. Epub 2023 Feb 11.
4
COVID-19 and contact tracing apps: The importance of theory and conceptual models.新冠疫情与接触者追踪应用程序:理论和概念模型的重要性。
Int J Med Inform. 2023 Feb;170:104957. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104957. Epub 2022 Dec 16.
5
Explaining citizens' resistance to use digital contact tracing apps: A mixed-methods study.解释公民对使用数字接触者追踪应用程序的抵触情绪:一项混合方法研究。
Int J Inf Manage. 2022 Apr;63:102468. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102468. Epub 2021 Dec 24.
6
Continued Use of Contact-Tracing Apps in the United States and the United Kingdom: Insights From a Comparative Study Through the Lens of the Health Belief Model.美国和英国对接触者追踪应用程序的持续使用:基于健康信念模型视角的比较研究洞察
JMIR Form Res. 2022 Dec 8;6(12):e40302. doi: 10.2196/40302.
7
Barriers and enablers of weight management after breast cancer: a thematic analysis of free text survey responses using the COM-B model.乳腺癌治疗后体重管理的障碍和促进因素:基于 COM-B 模型的自由文本调查应答的主题分析。
BMC Public Health. 2022 Aug 20;22(1):1587. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13980-6.
8
Effects of strict containment policies on COVID-19 pandemic crisis: lessons to cope with next pandemic impacts.严格封控政策对 COVID-19 大流行危机的影响:应对下一次大流行影响的经验教训。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023 Jan;30(1):2020-2028. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22024-w. Epub 2022 Aug 4.
9
Analysis of mHealth research: mapping the relationship between mobile apps technology and healthcare during COVID-19 outbreak.移动健康研究分析:在 COVID-19 疫情期间描绘移动应用技术与医疗保健之间的关系。
Global Health. 2022 Jun 28;18(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12992-022-00856-y.
10
Factors Influencing the Adoption of Contact Tracing Applications: Systematic Review and Recommendations.影响接触者追踪应用程序采用的因素:系统评价与建议
Front Digit Health. 2022 May 3;4:862466. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.862466. eCollection 2022.