Table 3.
Summary of the factors of CTA adoption.
| Factor | Facilitator | Barrier | #AF | #AB | #AFB | %AFB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Privacy and trust (#Article = 13) | 100% | |||||
| Privacy Concern | (27)(23)(15)(16)(22)(20)(26)(17)(29)(18)(21) | 0 | 11 | 11 | 92% | |
| Perceived (dis)trust | (27)(16)(23)(24) | (20)(26) | 4 | 2 | 6 | 46% |
| Privacy design/protection | (20)(25) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 8% | |
| User-controlled data sharing | (20) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Perceived utility (#Article = 8) | 62% | |||||
| Perceived usefulness/benefit | (15)(22)(29)(24) | 4 | 0 | 4 | 46% | |
| Social benefit | (27)(21)(25) | 3 | 0 | 3 | 15% | |
| Personal benefit | (27) (25) | (25) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% |
| Personal and social benefit | (25) | |||||
| Perceived unnecessariness | (26) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Perceived ineffectiveness | (26) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Facilitating conditions (#Articles = 7) | 54% | |||||
| Information about app | (22)(26) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% | |
| Technical concern | (22)(26) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 15% | |
| Perceived compatibility | (15) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Innovativeness | (15) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Cues to action | (29) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Perceived ease of use | (24) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Convenience design | (25) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Perceived low adoption rate | (20) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Social cognitive factors (#Articles = 7) | 54% | |||||
| Attitude towards CTA | (27)(24)(18) | 3 | 0 | 3 | 23% | |
| Subjective norm | (27)(15) | 15% | ||||
| SD self-efficacy | (23) | 8% | ||||
| SD response efficacy | (23) | 8% | ||||
| SD response cost | (23) | 8% | ||||
| Perceived trust in others' SDB | (23) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Perceived social safety | (20) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Prosocialness | (21) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Perceived technological threats (#Articles = 6) | 46% | |||||
| Data security risk | (20)(21) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 15% | |
| Perceived susceptibility | (27)(24) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 15% | |
| Perceived vulnerability | (16)(23) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 15% | |
| Perceived severity | (23) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Socio-demographic factors (#Articles = 6) | 46% | |||||
| Age | (26)(18) | (20)(21) | 2 | 2 | 4 | 31% |
| Income | (21) | (22) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15% |
| Living Area | (22)(21) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 8% | |
| Gender | (21) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Ethnicity | (21) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Culture | (27) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Work Type | (21) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Public transit frequency | (21) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Health condition | (20) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Education | (20) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Technology familiarity (#Articles = 5) | 39% | |||||
| IT self-efficacy | (25)(29) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% | |
| Perceived compatibility | (15) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Privacy self-efficacy | (27) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Technology readiness | (21) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Perceived health threats (#Articles = 4) | 31% | |||||
| Infection anxiety | (25)(18) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% | |
| Perceived COVID-19 risk | (24)(21) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% | |
| Persuasive design (#Articles = 3) | 23% | |||||
| Tangible reward | (20)(17) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% | |
| Non-tangible reward | (20) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Location monitoring | (17)(21) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% | |
| Self-monitoring | (17) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Contact location storage | (21) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Contact location upload | (21) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8% | |
| Ethical concerns (#Articles = 3) | 23% | |||||
| Voluntariness | (16)(22) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15% | |
| Affordability | (22)(20) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 15% | |
| Accessibility | (22) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Data accessor | (22) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
| Legal issues | (22) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8% | |
Work Type: non-essential (0) vs. essential (1), Living Area: non-urban (0) vs. urban (1), Ethnicity: White (0) vs. Hispanic (1), Gender: female (0) vs. male (1), Culture: individualism (0) vs. collectivism (1).
#AF: Number of articles that reported factor as a facilitator, #AB: Number of articles that reported factor as a barrier, #AFB: Number of articles that reported factor as a facilitator/barrier, SD: Social Distancing, SDB: Social Distancing Behavior, IT: Information Technology.