Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Public attitudes towards COVID-19 contact tracing apps: A UK-based focus group study

Simon N Williams, Christopher J. Armitage, Tova Tampe, Kimberly Dienes
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.14.20102269
Simon N Williams
1People and Organisation Group, School of Management, Swansea University, Swansea, SA1 8EN
2Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, 60611, United States of America
Roles: Senior Lecturer in People and Organisation
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: s.n.williams@swansea.ac.uk
Christopher J. Armitage
3Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL
4Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL
Roles: Professor of Health Psychology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tova Tampe
5World Health Organisation, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Roles: Independent Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kimberly Dienes
3Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL
Roles: Lecturer in Clinical and Health Psychology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To explore public attitudes to the proposed COVID-19 contact tracing app in the United Kingdom.

DESIGN Qualitative study consisting of five focus groups carried out between 1st-4th May, 2020 (39–42 days after the official start of the UK lockdown).

SETTING Online video-conferencing

PARTICIPANTS 22 participants, all UK residents aged 18 years and older, representing a range of different genders, ages, ethnicities and locations.

RESULTS Participants were split roughly equally in number across three groups: will use the app; will not be using the app; and undecided as to whether they will use the app. Analysis revealed five main themes: (1) Lack of information and misconceptions surrounding COVID-19 contact tracing apps; (2) concerns over privacy; (3) concerns over stigma; (4) concerns over uptake; and (5) contact tracing as the ‘greater good’. These themes were found across the sample and the three groups. However, concerns over privacy, uptake and stigma were particularly significant amongst those state they will not be using the app and the view that the app is for the “greater good” was particularly significant amongst those who stated they will be using the app. One of the most common misconceptions about the app was that it could allow users to specifically identify and map COVID-19 cases amongst their contacts and in their vicinity.

CONCLUSIONS We offer four recommendations: (1) To offset the fact that many people may not be accessing, or might be avoiding, news coverage on COVID-19, authorities must communicate to the public via a range of methods including but not limited to: social media ads, postal information, text messaging and other emergency alert systems. (2) Communications should emphasise that the app cannot enable the user to identify which of their contacts has reported COVID-19 symptoms or tested positive. (3) Communication should emphasise collective responsibility (‘the greater good’) to promote social norms around use of the app (4) Communication should provide a slogan that maximises clarity of message, for example: ‘Download the app, protect the NHS, save lives’.

Competing Interest Statement

Armitage is supported by NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. Tampe is an independent consultant and currently consults for the World Health Organization. The authors have no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the University of Manchester’s of Health Psychology Section research monies (£2000). The funders played no role in the conduct of the study.

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • s.n.williams{at}swansea.ac.uk, chris.armitage{at}manchester.ac.uk, tova.tampe{at}gmail.com, kimberly.dienes{at}manchester.ac.uk

Data Availability

Ethical restrictions related to participant confidentiality prohibit the authors from making the data set publicly available. During the consent process, participants were explicitly guaranteed that the data would only be seen my members of the study team. For any discussions about the data set please contact the corresponding author, Simon Williams (s.n.williams@swansea.ac.uk).

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 18, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Public attitudes towards COVID-19 contact tracing apps: A UK-based focus group study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Public attitudes towards COVID-19 contact tracing apps: A UK-based focus group study
Simon N Williams, Christopher J. Armitage, Tova Tampe, Kimberly Dienes
medRxiv 2020.05.14.20102269; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.14.20102269
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Public attitudes towards COVID-19 contact tracing apps: A UK-based focus group study
Simon N Williams, Christopher J. Armitage, Tova Tampe, Kimberly Dienes
medRxiv 2020.05.14.20102269; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.14.20102269

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Public and Global Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (62)
  • Allergy and Immunology (142)
  • Anesthesia (46)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (415)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (70)
  • Dermatology (48)
  • Emergency Medicine (144)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (171)
  • Epidemiology (4861)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (183)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (676)
  • Geriatric Medicine (70)
  • Health Economics (192)
  • Health Informatics (630)
  • Health Policy (321)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (206)
  • Hematology (85)
  • HIV/AIDS (156)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5343)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (331)
  • Medical Education (93)
  • Medical Ethics (24)
  • Nephrology (75)
  • Neurology (686)
  • Nursing (42)
  • Nutrition (115)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (126)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (208)
  • Oncology (440)
  • Ophthalmology (140)
  • Orthopedics (36)
  • Otolaryngology (90)
  • Pain Medicine (35)
  • Palliative Medicine (16)
  • Pathology (129)
  • Pediatrics (194)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (131)
  • Primary Care Research (84)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (781)
  • Public and Global Health (1817)
  • Radiology and Imaging (325)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (138)
  • Respiratory Medicine (255)
  • Rheumatology (86)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (69)
  • Sports Medicine (62)
  • Surgery (100)
  • Toxicology (23)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (37)