| Literature DB >> 35685757 |
Ali Alkhalifah1, Umar Ali Bukar2.
Abstract
COVID-19 contact-tracing applications (CTAs) offer enormous potential to mitigate the surge of positive coronavirus cases, thus helping stakeholders to monitor high-risk areas. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is among the countries that have developed a CTA known as the Tawakkalna application, to manage the spread of COVID-19. Thus, this study aimed to examine and predict the factors affecting the adoption of Tawakkalna CTA. An integrated model which comprises the technology acceptance model (TAM), privacy calculus theory (PCT), and task-technology fit (TTF) model was hypothesized. The model is used to understand better behavioral intention toward using the Tawakkalna mobile CTA. This study performed structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis as well as artificial neural network (ANN) analysis to validate the model, using survey data from 309 users of CTAs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The findings revealed that perceived ease of use and usefulness has positively and significantly impacted the behavioral intention of Tawakkalna mobile CTA. Similarly, task features and mobility positively and significantly influence task-technology fit, and significantly affect the behavioral intention of the CTA. However, the privacy risk, social concerns, and perceived benefits of social interaction are not significant factors. The findings provide adequate knowledge of the relative impact of key predictors of the behavioral intention of the Tawakkalna contact-tracing app.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; behavioral intention (BI); contact-tracing app; health; privacy; technology adoption
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685757 PMCID: PMC9171054 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.847184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Countries with COVID-19 contact-tracing initiatives as of July 6, 2021. Source: Hale et al. (33).
Summary of existing CTA adoption studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Velicia-Martin et al. ( | Extended TAM | Empirical, PLS-SEM | Usefulness and ease of use are significant predictors. However, there is no cause of privacy concern. | Spain |
| Altmann et al. ( | NA | Empirical, multivariate regression analysis | The main barriers to adoption include cybersecurity and privacy and lack of trust in the government. | France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. |
| Nguyen et al. ( | Extended TAM | Empirical, PLS-SEM, and fuzzy set/qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) | Risk perception, perceived usefulness, and health information orientation positively influence behavioral intention, which affects actual use. | United States |
| Hassandoust et al. ( | Integrative | Empirical, PLS-SEM | Risk beliefs, perceived individual and societal benefits to public health, privacy concerns, privacy protection initiatives (legal and technical protection), and technology features (anonymity and use of less sensitive data) are significant. In addition, there is an indirect relationship between trust in public health authorities and intention. Also, sex, education, media exposure, and past invasion of privacy did not have a significant relationship. | United State (US) |
| Meier et al. ( | Privacy calculus perspective | Empirical, CB-SEM | Positive effects include perceived benefits and knowledge on actual app adoption, perceiving app benefits and usage intention, and trust with perceived benefits. However, those with negative effects include privacy concerns and usage, trust and privacy concerns, and privacy concerns with app usage. | Germany |
| Walrave et al. ( | UTAUT | Empirical, CB-SEM | Performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, and social influence was significant, while effort expectancy was not. Moreover, individuals' innovativeness affects app use intention, whereas privacy concerns have a negative impact on intention. | Belgium |
| Duan and Deng ( | UTAUT and PCT | Empirical, CB-SEM, and ANN | Effort expectancy, the perceived value of information disclosure, and social influence are significant. Moreover, perceived privacy risks and performance expectancy are indirectly significant. However, facilitating condition is insignificant. | Australia |
| Blom et al. ( | NA | Empirical, descriptive statistics | Effectiveness of app-based contact tracing to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. | Germany |
| Dowthwaite et al. ( | Extended TAM | Empirical, descriptive statistics | Differences in vulnerable populations' attitudes toward and trust in the app and compliance with self-isolation guidance were emphasized. | United Kingdom |
| Sharma et al. ( | FT, DCT, PMT, TPB, and HCDT | Empirical; PLS-SEM | The relationship between the effectiveness of privacy policy and privacy concerns is negative, perceived vulnerability and privacy concerns is positive, expected personal and community-related outcomes of sharing information and attitudes is positive, privacy concerns and attitudes is negative, and attitude, subjective norms, and privacy self-efficacy on intention is positive. | Fiji |
Figure 2Research model for adoption of Tawakkalna contact-tracing app (CTA). BI, behavioral intention; PCT, privacy calculus theory; PEoU, perceived ease of use; PR, privacy risk; PU, perceived usefulness; SI, social interaction; SR, social risk; TAM, technology acceptance model; TF, task features; TM, technology mobility; TTF, task-technology fit.
Research items.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobility | TM1 | Using Tawakkalna mobile contact-tracing app is independent of time. | ( |
| TM2 | Using Tawakkalna is independent of place. | ||
| TM3 | Using Tawakkalna is convenient because the phone is usually with me. | ||
| Task features | TF1 | I need to accomplish some tasks at any time, e.g., scanning QR code to enter places. | ( |
| TF2 | I need to accomplish some tasks anywhere, e.g., scanning QR code to enter places. | ||
| TF3 | I have some tasks which need to be completed immediately, e.g., scanning QR code to enter places or reporting violators. | ||
| TF4 | I have some tasks which need to be completed importantly, e.g., registering an appointment for vaccination. | ||
| Task–technology fit | TTF1 | In helping to complete my tasks, the functions of Tawakkalna mobile contact-tracing app are enough. | ( |
| TTF2 | In helping to complete my tasks, the functions of Tawakkalna are appropriate. | ||
| TTF3 | In general, the functions of Tawakkalna fully meet my needs, either when I am in an emergency or when I am not. | ||
| Perceived usefulness | PU1 | Using the Tawakkalna app would make me feel better about myself. | ( |
| PU2 | By using the Tawakkalna app, I would hope to be helping society. | ||
| PU3 | The use of Tawakkalna app would increase my peace of mind. | ||
| Perceived ease of use | PEoU1 | The purpose of Tawakkalna is clear and understandable. | ( |
| PEoU2 | I think that learning to use Tawakkalna would be very easy for me. | ||
| PEoU3 | With Tawakkalna, it would be easy for me to avoid the contagion of COVID-19. | ||
| PEoU4 | I would find it useful to have Tawakkalna to tell me how to avoid people who have COVID-19. | ||
| Behavioral intention | BI1 | I intend to continue using Tawakkalna in the future. | ( |
| BI2 | I will try to use Tawakkalna in my daily life. | ||
| BI3 | I intend to continue to use Tawakkalna frequently. | ||
| Privacy risk | PR1 | It bothers me when health authorities track my location through my Tawakkalna mobile contact-tracing app. | ( |
| PR2 | I am concerned that health authorities are collecting too much location information about me through my Tawakkalna mobile contact-tracing app. | ||
| PR3 | It bothers me if health authorities collect my mobile location and I cannot alter the location settings. | ||
| PR4 | It bothers me when I do not have control over how my mobile location is used by health authorities. | ||
| Social risk | SR1 | I am concerned that my movement may be restricted if I do not use Tawakkalna. | ( |
| SR2 | I am concerned that I may not be allowed to visit places without Tawakkalna installed on my phone. | ||
| SR3 | I am concerned that my family and friends will not allow me to visit them if I am not using Tawakkalna. | ||
| SR4 | I am concerned that if Tawakkalna indicates that I am a suspected case, I will be forced to self-isolate. | ||
| Social interaction | SI1 | By using Tawakkalna, I will be allowed to move freely, without any restrictions. | ( |
| SI2 | By using Tawakkalna, I will visit places, anywhere and at any time. | ||
| SI3 | By using Tawakkalna, my family and friends will allow me to visit them. |
CMB total variance explained.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 13.302 | 41.568 | 41.568 | 13.032 | 40.724 | 40.724 |
| 2 | 3.327 | 10.398 | 51.966 | |||
| 3 | 1.969 | 6.153 | 58.12 | |||
| 4 | 1.492 | 4.663 | 62.783 | |||
| 5 | 1.05 | 3.283 | 66.065 | |||
| 6 | 0.981 | 3.065 | 69.13 | |||
| 7 | 0.812 | 2.536 | 71.666 | |||
| 8 | 0.766 | 2.395 | 74.062 | |||
| 9 | 0.733 | 2.292 | 76.353 | |||
| 10 | 0.696 | 2.174 | 78.527 | |||
Demographic characteristics of sample.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 207 | 66.9 |
| Female | 102 | 33.1 |
|
| ||
| <18 | 0 | 0 |
| 18–21 | 28 | 9.1 |
| 22–31 | 95 | 30.7 |
| 32–41 | 121 | 39.2 |
| 42-51 | 45 | 14.6 |
| 52–61 | 17 | 5.5 |
| More than 61 | 3 | 1 |
|
| ||
| Not educated | 0 | 2.6 |
| Secondary school | 8 | 4.9 |
| Diploma | 15 | 58.3 |
| Bachelor | 180 | 14.6 |
| Master | 45 | 17.5 |
| PhD | 54 | 2.9 |
| Others | 9 | |
|
| ||
| Saudi | 226 | 73.1 |
| Non-Saudi | 83 | 26.9 |
|
| ||
| <1 h | 11 | 3.6 |
| 1–3 h | 160 | 51.8 |
| 4–7 h | 82 | 26.5 |
| 8–11 h | 35 | 11.3 |
| 12–15 h | 12 | 3.9 |
| More than 15 h | 7 | 2.3 |
| Not specified | 2 | 0.6 |
Descriptive statistics: mean, standard deviations (S.D.) skewness, and kurtosis.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| BI | 5.175 | 0.957 | −0.613 | 0.139 | 0.878 | 0.276 |
| PU | 5.188 | 1.039 | −0.471 | 0.139 | −0.132 | 0.276 |
| PEoU | 5.395 | 0.845 | −0.513 | 0.139 | 0.311 | 0.276 |
| PR | 4.385 | 1.391 | −0.476 | 0.139 | −0.696 | 0.276 |
| SI | 5.272 | 0.999 | −0.700 | 0.139 | 0.251 | 0.276 |
| SR | 5.232 | 0.961 | −0.340 | 0.139 | −0.384 | 0.276 |
| TF | 5.159 | 0.949 | −0.293 | 0.139 | −0.971 | 0.276 |
| TM | 5.215 | 1.037 | −0.702 | 0.139 | 0.342 | 0.276 |
| TTF | 5.215 | 1.037 | −0.702 | 0.139 | 0.342 | 0.276 |
Scale properties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Behavioral Intention (BI) | BI1 | 0.901 | 0.829 | 0.836 | 0.898 | 0.746 |
| BI2 | 0.877 | |||||
| BI3 | 0.81 | |||||
| Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU) | PEoU1 | 0.742 | 0.75 | 0.755 | 0.841 | 0.57 |
| PEoU2 | 0.788 | |||||
| PEoU3 | 0.781 | |||||
| PEoU4 | 0.707 | |||||
| Perceived Usefulness (PU) | PU1 | 0.851 | 0.85 | 0.851 | 0.909 | 0.77 |
| PU2 | 0.903 | |||||
| PU3 | 0.878 | |||||
| Privacy Risk (PR) | PR1 | 0.89 | 0.893 | 0.953 | 0.921 | 0.745 |
| PR2 | 0.932 | |||||
| PR3 | 0.782 | |||||
| PR4 | 0.841 | |||||
| Social Interaction (SI) | SI1 | 0.825 | 0.79 | 0.791 | 0.877 | 0.705 |
| SI2 | 0.87 | |||||
| SI3 | 0.823 | |||||
| Social Risk (SR) | SR1 | 0.762 | 0.827 | 0.838 | 0.886 | 0.662 |
| SR2 | 0.854 | |||||
| SR3 | 0.896 | |||||
| SR4 | 0.732 | |||||
| Task Features (TF) | TF1 | 0.851 | 0.843 | 0.846 | 0.895 | 0.68 |
| TF2 | 0.818 | |||||
| TF3 | 0.819 | |||||
| TF4 | 0.809 | |||||
| Technology Mobility (TM) | TM1 | 0.811 | 0.817 | 0.816 | 0.892 | 0.733 |
| TM2 | 0.901 | |||||
| TM3 | 0.854 | |||||
| Task-Technology Fit (TTF) | TTF1 | 0.792 | 0.784 | 0.787 | 0.875 | 0.699 |
| TTF2 | 0.87 | |||||
| TTF3 | 0.845 |
Factor correlation coefficients and square roots of average variance extracted (AVE) values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI | 0.864 | ||||||||
| PEoU | 0.617 | 0.755 | |||||||
| PR | −0.056 | −0.073 | 0.863 | ||||||
| PU | 0.673 | 0.546 | −0.102 | 0.877 | |||||
| SI | 0.589 | 0.664 | 0.002 | 0.539 | 0.84 | ||||
| SR | 0.512 | 0.626 | −0.059 | 0.519 | 0.747 | 0.814 | |||
| TF | 0.682 | 0.609 | −0.237 | 0.702 | 0.656 | 0.57 | 0.824 | ||
| TM | 0.668 | 0.637 | −0.075 | 0.707 | 0.626 | 0.558 | 0.726 | 0.856 | |
| TTF | 0.674 | 0.659 | −0.071 | 0.632 | 0.692 | 0.633 | 0.762 | 0.757 | 0.836 |
Diagonal elements with bold font are the square roots of AVE values. BI, behavioral intention; PEoU, perceived ease of use; PR, privacy risk; PU, perceived usefulness; SI, social interaction; SR, social risk; TF, task features; TM, technology mobility; TTF, task-technology fit.
Figure 3Test results of the structural model. n.s., non-significant; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Summary of hypotheses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | PEoU −> BI | 0.202 | 0.013 | 2.803 | 0.005 | Yes |
| H2 | PU −> BI | 0.361 | 0.012 | 5.564 | 0 | Yes |
| H3 | PEoU −> PU | 0.546 | 0.006 | 16.713 | 0 | Yes |
| H4 | PR −> BI | 0.010 | 0.008 | 0.222 | 0.824 | No |
| H5 | SR −> BI | −0.060 | 0.014 | 0.747 | 0.455 | No |
| H6 | SI −> BI | 0.119 | 0.016 | 1.333 | 0.182 | No |
| H7 | TM −> TTF | 0.430 | 0.009 | 8.372 | 0 | Yes |
| H8 | TF −> TTF | 0.450 | 0.009 | 9.04 | 0 | Yes |
| H9 | TTF −> BI | 0.269 | 0.014 | 3.451 | 0.001 | Yes |
n.s., non-significant; SE, standard error;
*p < 0.05;
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001.
R2, Q2 predictive relevance, and effect size (f2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| BI | 0.588 | 0.43 | PEoU | 0.045 |
| PU | 0.176 | |||
| PR | 0 | |||
| SR | 0.003 | |||
| SI | 0.012 | |||
| TTF | 0.068 | |||
| PU | 0.298 | 0.151 | PEoU | 0.425 |
| TTF | 0.668 | 0.458 | TF | 0.288 |
| TM | 0.263 |
Figure 4Artificial neural network (ANN) model. Hidden layer activation function: hyperbolic tangent; output layer activation function: sigmoid; input neurons: PU, perceived usefulness; PEoU, perceived ease of use; TTF, task-technology fit.
Root-mean-square error (RMSE) values for training and testing.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.536 | 0.553 |
| 2 | 0.531 | 0.563 |
| 3 | 0.564 | 0.551 |
| 4 | 0.543 | 0.552 |
| 5 | 0.549 | 0.551 |
| 6 | 0.539 | 0.559 |
| 7 | 0.544 | 0.549 |
| 8 | 0.545 | 0.544 |
| 9 | 0.55 | 0.555 |
| 10 | 0.551 | 0.547 |
| Mean | 0.545 | 0.553 |
| SD | 0.009 | 0.006 |
Network and input neurons: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and task-technology fit; SD, standard deviation.
Sensitivity analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.501 | 0.165 | 0.334 |
| 2 | 0.465 | 0.188 | 0.348 |
| 3 | 0.558 | 0.138 | 0.304 |
| 4 | 0.452 | 0.181 | 0.367 |
| 5 | 0.54 | 0.173 | 0.287 |
| 6 | 0.477 | 0.202 | 0.321 |
| 7 | 0.448 | 0.165 | 0.387 |
| 8 | 0.465 | 0.159 | 0.376 |
| 9 | 0.567 | 0.175 | 0.258 |
| 10 | 0.524 | 0.191 | 0.284 |
| Average RI | 0.4997 | 0.1737 | 0.3266 |
| Normalized RI (%) | 100 | 35.06 | 66.45 |
Input neurons: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and task-technology fit; RI, relative importance; PU, perceived usefulness; PEoU, perceived ease of use; TTF, task-technology fit.
Comparison of proposed approach with existing studies.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref | ( | ( | ( | ( | Proposed model |
| Country | US | US | Spain | Fiji | KSA |
| Theoretical model | Extended TAM | PCT | Extended TAM | FT, DCT, PMT, TPB, and HCDT | TAM, PCT, TTF |
| Method | PLS-SEM and fsQCA | PLS-SEM | PLS-SEM | CB-SEM | PLS-SEM-ANN |
| Dependent Variable | App use | Intention to install CTA | Behavioral intention to use | Adoption intention | Behavioral intention |
| 44 | 75 | 77 | 51 | 56 | |