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

More than privacy: Australians’ concerns and misconceptions about the COVIDSafe App: a short report

View ORCID ProfileRae Thomas, View ORCID ProfileZoe Michaleff, Hannah Greenwood, Eman Abukmail, View ORCID ProfilePaul Glasziou
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20126110
Rae Thomas
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rae Thomas
  • For correspondence: rthomas@bond.edu.au
Zoe Michaleff
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Zoe Michaleff
Hannah Greenwood
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eman Abukmail
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Glasziou
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Paul Glasziou
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

This survey of 1500 Australians about the COVIDSafe app found that the reasons for not downloading included privacy concerns, phone capabilities, and beliefs of limited benefit. COVIDSafe knowledge varied with confusion about purpose and capabilities. Public health messaging will need to address these perceptions to achieve sufficient uptake.

Introduction

Since the Australian Government launched the COVIDSafe app to “help support and protect you, your friends and family” [1] over 5.4 million Australians (21%) have downloaded the app, but still short of the 40% target. While this action has been supported by many organisations, [2] it remains controversial with unanswered questions [3]. We aimed to explore: a) reasons for choosing not to download the app and b) Australians’ understanding about the app’s purpose and capabilities.

Method

Participants were recruited for a national, cross-sectional, online survey by a market research company (Dynata) with quotas for nationally representative proportions of age and gender. Participants were included if ≥18 years, and excluded if they had, or thought they had, COVID-19 or were healthcare professionals.

All participants were asked whether they had, or intended to download the COVIDSafe app. If they responded “unsure” or “no intention to download”, they were asked to provide a reason for their response. We qualitatively coded the reasons for inaction and uncertainty. Additionally, all participants rated their strength of agreement (strongly disagree - strongly agree and a don’t know response) on six statements related to the app’s purpose.

Results

Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 were excluded, 13 declined and 1500 participated in the survey (response rate 83%). Gender (50% male) and education levels distributed evenly (≤highschool and TAFE qualification 49%; tertiary qualification 51%).

Of survey participants, 37% (560/1500) said they had downloaded the COVIDSafe app, 19% intend to download, 28% refused to download, and 16% remain undecided. Of those who refused or remain undecided (n=640), 25% cited privacy concerns as their primary reason. Importantly, almost another quarter (24%) cited technical problems such as: their phone was too old or had data consumption and storage space limitations. Other reasons included a belief that social distancing was sufficient and the app is unnecessary for them (16%), distrust in the Government (11%), questioning the app’s effectiveness (7%), wanting to explore further information before deciding (5%), and miscellaneous responses (11%) including apathy and following the decisions of others.

Most participants correctly agreed that the app would make contact tracing faster and easier (75%), that more potentially exposed people would be found and informed (73%), and correctly disagreed that it would detect whether an individual would have COVID-19 (60%). In contrast, 50% of participants thought their personal information would be shared post-pandemic and incorrectly thought the app would detect when people with COVID-19 were near them (76%). Interestingly, participants were almost divided in their opinions as to whether the app would inform them it was safe to leave their house (see Figure).

Figure.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure. Participants’ ratings of suggested purposes and capabilities of the COVIDSafe app (N=1500).

Discussion

Contributing almost half of the inaction in downloading COVIDSafe were concerns about privacy or technical limitations of their phone. Many participants had marked misconceptions about the purpose and capability of the COVIDsafe app. Concerns raised in this survey are mirrored in a smaller, unpublished Australian survey (n=536) [4]. Addressing these perceptions and issues in public messaging will be important to achieving sufficient uptake.

Data Availability

Data may be available upon request from authors.

Competing interests

no relevant disclosures

Acknowledgements

RT, ZM, and HG are supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Program grant (#1106452). PG is supported by a NHMRC Research Fellowship (#1080042).

References

  1. 1.↵
    Australian Government, Department of Health. COVIDSafe app [internet, cited 2020 May 13]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/apps-and-tools/covidsafe-app
  2. 2.↵
    Christodoulou D, Samuell D, Slonim R, compilers. Endorse COVIDSafe [internet, cited 2020 May 13]. Available from: https://endorsecovidsafe.com/
  3. 3.↵
    Leins K, Culnane C, Rubinstein BIP. Tracking, tracing, trust: Contemplating mitigating the impact of COVID-19 through technological interventions. Med J Aust 2020; https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/tracking-tracing-trust-contemplating-mitigating-impact-covid-19-through-technological [Preprint, 7 May 2020].
  4. 4.↵
    Garret P, White J, Little D, et al. A representative sample of Australian participant’s attitudes towards the COVIDSafe App. [internet, cited 2020 May 13th]. Available from: https://paulgarrettphd.github.io/Site/Wave3PrelimAnalysis.html
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 09, 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.
More than privacy: Australians’ concerns and misconceptions about the COVIDSafe App: a short report
(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
More than privacy: Australians’ concerns and misconceptions about the COVIDSafe App: a short report
Rae Thomas, Zoe Michaleff, Hannah Greenwood, Eman Abukmail, Paul Glasziou
medRxiv 2020.06.09.20126110; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20126110
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
More than privacy: Australians’ concerns and misconceptions about the COVIDSafe App: a short report
Rae Thomas, Zoe Michaleff, Hannah Greenwood, Eman Abukmail, Paul Glasziou
medRxiv 2020.06.09.20126110; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.09.20126110

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

  • Health Policy
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (179)
  • Allergy and Immunology (433)
  • Anesthesia (99)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (947)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (178)
  • Dermatology (109)
  • Emergency Medicine (260)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (420)
  • Epidemiology (8981)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (419)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1949)
  • Geriatric Medicine (190)
  • Health Economics (401)
  • Health Informatics (1328)
  • Health Policy (659)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (519)
  • Hematology (212)
  • HIV/AIDS (420)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10797)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (575)
  • Medical Education (200)
  • Medical Ethics (54)
  • Nephrology (222)
  • Neurology (1825)
  • Nursing (109)
  • Nutrition (272)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (352)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (470)
  • Oncology (997)
  • Ophthalmology (297)
  • Orthopedics (111)
  • Otolaryngology (182)
  • Pain Medicine (126)
  • Palliative Medicine (44)
  • Pathology (265)
  • Pediatrics (579)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (275)
  • Primary Care Research (234)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1896)
  • Public and Global Health (4120)
  • Radiology and Imaging (675)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (368)
  • Respiratory Medicine (548)
  • Rheumatology (224)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (190)
  • Sports Medicine (177)
  • Surgery (207)
  • Toxicology (39)
  • Transplantation (109)
  • Urology (80)