Abstract
Objective To measure meaningful, local exposure notification adoption without in-app analytics.
Methods We surveyed app usage via case investigation interviews at the University of Arizona, with a focus on the period from September 9 to November 28, 2020, after automating the issuance of secure codes to verify positive diagnoses within the test result delivery system. As independent validation, we compared the number of secure codes issued to the number of local cases.
Results Of cases interviewed by university case investigators, 46% (286/628) reported having the app, and 55% (157/286) of these app users shared their positive SARS-CoV-2 test result in the app prior to the case investigation interview, comprising 25% (157/628) of all interviewed cases. This is corroborated by a 33% (565/1,713) ratio of code issuance (inflated by some unclaimed codes) to cases. Combining the 25% probability that a primary case rapidly shares their diagnosis with a 46% probability that the secondary case can receive exposure notifications, an estimated 11% of transmission pairs exhibit meaningful app usage. We attribute these high rates, despite the lack of “push” notifications, to a successful marketing campaign that identified social influencers.
Conclusions Usage can be assessed in clusters, without in-app analytics. With marketing, high uptake in dense social networks like universities make exposure notification a useful complement to traditional contact tracing. Integrating verification code delivery into patient results portals was successful in making the exposure notification process rapid.
Competing Interest Statement
JM consults for WeHealth PBC (distributors of the Covid Watch Arizona app).
Funding Statement
Funding was provided by the University of Arizona.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Data were collected under public health surveillance guidelines as part of an evaluation of the system. A request for aggregate data was made by the evaluation team to the Pima County Health Department and University of Arizona privacy officers in consultation with the University of Arizona IRB and was deemed not human subjects research. Data on positive tests were publicly available on the University of Arizona dashboard.
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
Data on numbers of positive tests has been de-duplicated to obtain numbers of cases. Other minor revisions.
Data Availability
Aggregate data is available upon request.
