Country- and app-level factors affecting the adoption and evaluation of COVID-19 mobile apps
Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews › RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal › peer-review
Author(s)
Related Research Unit(s)
Detail(s)
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 2457 |
Journal / Publication | BMC Public Health |
Volume | 22 |
Online published | 31 Dec 2022 |
Publication status | Published - 2022 |
Link(s)
DOI | DOI |
---|---|
Attachment(s) | Documents
Publisher's Copyright Statement
|
Link to Scopus | https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85145394337&origin=recordpage |
Permanent Link | https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/publications/publication(1995b504-a727-4a38-a078-cc616ccbb7e8).html |
Abstract
Background: Countries across the globe have released many COVID-19 mobile apps. However, there is a lack of systematic empirical investigation into the factors affecting the adoption and evaluation of COVID-related apps. This study explores what factors at the country level and the app levels would influence the adoption and evaluation of COVID-19 apps.
Methods: We collected data on 267 COVID-19 apps in App Store and Google Play. The number of installs, ratings, reviews and rating scores were used as indicators of adoption and evaluation. Country-level predictors include the number of infected cases and the political system (i.e., democratic vs. non-democratic). App-level predictors include developer (i.e., government vs. non-government) and functions. Four app functions were coded for analysis: providing health information, contact tracing, home monitoring, and consultation. Negative binomial regression and OLS (Ordinary Least Square) regression were used to analyze the data.
Results: Our analyses show that apps developed by countries with more infected cases (B = 0.079, CI (Confidence Interval) = 0.000, 0.158; P = .049) and by non-governmental institutions (B=-0.369, CI=-0.653, -0.083; P = .01) received more positive rating scores. Apps with home monitoring function received lower rating scores (B=-0.550, CI=-0.971, -0.129; P = .01). Regarding adoption, apps developed by governments were more likely to be installed (IRR (Incident Rate Ratio) = 8.156, CI = 3.389, 19.626; P < .001), to be rated (IRR = 26.036, CI = 7.331, 92.468; P < .001), and to receive user comments (IRR = 12.080, CI = 3.954, 37.568; p < .001). Apps with functions of contact tracing or consultation were more likely to be installed (IRR = 4.533, CI = 2.072, 9.918; p < .001; IRR = 4.885, CI = 1.970, 12.111; p < .001), to be rated (IRR = 11.634, CI = 3.486, 38.827; p < .001; IRR = 17.194, CI = 5.309, 55.680; p < .001), and to receive user comments (IRR = 5.688, CI = 2.052, 5.770; p < .001; IRR = 16.718, CI = 5.363, 52.113; p < .001). Apps with home monitoring functions were less likely to be rated (IRR = 0.206, CI = 0.047, 0.896; P = .04) but more likely to receive user comments (IRR = 3.874, CI = 1.044, 14.349; P = .04). Further analysis shows that apps developed in democratic countries (OR (Odd Ratio) = 3.650, CI = 1.238, 10.758; P = .02) or by governments (OR = 7.987, CI = 4.106, 15.534, P < .001) were more likely to include the function of contact tracing.
Conclusion: This study systematically investigates factors affecting the adoption and evaluation of COVID-19 apps. Evidence shows that government-developed apps and the inclusion of contact tracing and consultation app functions strongly predict app adoption.
Methods: We collected data on 267 COVID-19 apps in App Store and Google Play. The number of installs, ratings, reviews and rating scores were used as indicators of adoption and evaluation. Country-level predictors include the number of infected cases and the political system (i.e., democratic vs. non-democratic). App-level predictors include developer (i.e., government vs. non-government) and functions. Four app functions were coded for analysis: providing health information, contact tracing, home monitoring, and consultation. Negative binomial regression and OLS (Ordinary Least Square) regression were used to analyze the data.
Results: Our analyses show that apps developed by countries with more infected cases (B = 0.079, CI (Confidence Interval) = 0.000, 0.158; P = .049) and by non-governmental institutions (B=-0.369, CI=-0.653, -0.083; P = .01) received more positive rating scores. Apps with home monitoring function received lower rating scores (B=-0.550, CI=-0.971, -0.129; P = .01). Regarding adoption, apps developed by governments were more likely to be installed (IRR (Incident Rate Ratio) = 8.156, CI = 3.389, 19.626; P < .001), to be rated (IRR = 26.036, CI = 7.331, 92.468; P < .001), and to receive user comments (IRR = 12.080, CI = 3.954, 37.568; p < .001). Apps with functions of contact tracing or consultation were more likely to be installed (IRR = 4.533, CI = 2.072, 9.918; p < .001; IRR = 4.885, CI = 1.970, 12.111; p < .001), to be rated (IRR = 11.634, CI = 3.486, 38.827; p < .001; IRR = 17.194, CI = 5.309, 55.680; p < .001), and to receive user comments (IRR = 5.688, CI = 2.052, 5.770; p < .001; IRR = 16.718, CI = 5.363, 52.113; p < .001). Apps with home monitoring functions were less likely to be rated (IRR = 0.206, CI = 0.047, 0.896; P = .04) but more likely to receive user comments (IRR = 3.874, CI = 1.044, 14.349; P = .04). Further analysis shows that apps developed in democratic countries (OR (Odd Ratio) = 3.650, CI = 1.238, 10.758; P = .02) or by governments (OR = 7.987, CI = 4.106, 15.534, P < .001) were more likely to include the function of contact tracing.
Conclusion: This study systematically investigates factors affecting the adoption and evaluation of COVID-19 apps. Evidence shows that government-developed apps and the inclusion of contact tracing and consultation app functions strongly predict app adoption.
Research Area(s)
Citation Format(s)
Country- and app-level factors affecting the adoption and evaluation of COVID-19 mobile apps. / Wu, Yi; Ye, Qianying; Shen, Fei et al.
In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 22, 2457, 2022.
In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 22, 2457, 2022.
Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews › RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal › peer-review
Download Statistics
No data available