Back

How to Make COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps work: Insights From Behavioral Economics

Ayres, I.; Romano, A.; Sotis, C.

2020-09-11 health economics
10.1101/2020.09.09.20191320 medRxiv
Show abstract

Due to network effects, Contact Tracing Apps (CTAs) are only effective if many people download them. However, the response to CTAs has been tepid. For example, in France less than 2 million people (roughly 3% of the population) downloaded the CTA. Against this background, we carry out an online experiment to show that CTAs can still play a key role in containing the spread of COVID-19, provided that they are re-conceptualized to account for insights from behavioral science. We start by showing that carefully devised in-app notifications are effective in inducing prudent behavior like wearing a mask or staying home. In particular, people that are notified that they are taking too much risk and could become a superspreader engage in more prudent behavior. Building on this result, we suggest that CTAs should be re-framed as Behavioral Feedback Apps (BFAs). The main function of BFAs would be providing users with information on how to minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19, like how crowded a store is likely to be. Moreover, the BFA could have a rating system that allows users to flag stores that do not respect safety norms like wearing masks. These functions can inform the behavior of app users, thus playing a key role in containing the spread of the virus even if a small percentage of people download the BFA. While effective contact tracing is impossible when only 3% of the population downloads the app, less risk taking by small portions of the population can produce large benefits. BFAs can be programmed so that users can also activate a tracing function akin to the one currently carried out by CTAs. Making contact tracing an ancillary, opt-in function might facilitate a wider acceptance of BFAs.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.8%
2
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.1%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 11%
6.3%
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.3%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.3%
9
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
10
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.5%
11
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
12
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
13
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
14
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
15
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
17
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
18
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
19
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
20
Communications Psychology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
21
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.7%
23
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
24
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
25
Swiss Medical Weekly
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
26
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
27
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%