Telefonni Seznam

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Phonebook
  • Telephone directory
  • Telephone book
  • Phone contact
  • Telecommunications network

Telefonni Seznam

Header Banner

Telefonni Seznam

  • Home
  • Phonebook
  • Telephone directory
  • Telephone book
  • Phone contact
  • Telecommunications network
Phone contact
Home›Phone contact›Government-backed study finds Australia’s COVIDSafe app ineffective for contact tracing

Government-backed study finds Australia’s COVIDSafe app ineffective for contact tracing

By Catherine H. Perez
February 7, 2022
0
0

Government-backed research has found Australia’s national contract tracking app to be unnecessary and ineffective for the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A A study funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council and the New South Wales Department of Health evaluated the effectiveness and usefulness of COVIDSafe, a smartphone-based proximity tracing app introduced in April 2020.

RESULTS

Recently published in the journal The Lancet Public Health this month, the study was carried out in New South Wales, the country’s most populous state, and involved 619 confirmed cases of locally acquired COVID-19 with more of 25,300 close contacts identified through conventional contact tracing between May 4 and November 4. 2020. Semi-structured interviews with state public health personnel were also conducted to assess the perceived usefulness of the app.

The study identified three big issues that seemed to make the app useless for COVID-19 contact tracing in NSW:

  • Lower than expected absorption among the population at risk;

  • Poor diagnostic performance; and

  • Low perceived usefulness by public health staff.

Of the positive cases, more than one in five or 137 people were using the COVIDSafe app. Only 79 people were considered their close contacts, giving the app a positive predictive value of 39%. Its estimated sensitivity, meanwhile, is 15% since only 35 of the 236 identified close contacts were detected by the application. Additionally, the app spotted 17 other close contacts who were not identified by conventional contact tracing.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming response from interviews was that COVIDSafe was not helpful in contact tracing. In addition to its cumbersome interface, some healthcare staff required substantial assistance in accessing and interpreting the data, leading to delays in rollout and notification of close contacts. The app, respondents said, did not shorten the time to detect close contacts. Additionally, they noted a difference between the ability of iPhone and Android devices to detect contacts and the poor ability to save contacts when the phones are locked.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT

According to the researchers, this is the first study of its kind that has examined the potential benefits of digital contact tracing apps for the public health response to COVID-19.

It concluded that the COVIDSafe app was “not effective enough to make a meaningful contribution to COVID-19 contact tracing” in New South Wales due to low app usage, poor performance of diagnosis and challenges for public health personnel.

Given the high operating costs of such a digital tool, the study suggests integrating effective assessments into the implementation of proximity contact tracing systems to justify the investments. A government filing showed the estimated cost of developing and operating COVIDSafe to be A$6.75 million ($4.7 million) with monthly maintenance costs of around A$100,000 ($70 000 dollars). The study also suggests using real-world piloting and post-implementation user input to ensure the “added value” of digital tracing technology for public health.

THE GREAT TREND

There was a similar review of the COVIDSafe app which covered the period from March to November 2020. Conducted by consultancy firm Abt Associates, the an independent study also found the app unnecessary for contact tracing while putting more pressure on already overworked health workers.

While the the federal government’s review of the app admitted that the app had been “rarely” used due to the relatively low cases of COVID-19 recorded between May 2020 and May 2021, it still considered the app a ” important addition” to the suite of tools that complements conventional contact tracing efforts.

Related posts:

  1. Search for COVID contacts, the Ministry of Health “messes up” for these Victorians in the middle of the reopening
  2. December 17th Review: Contact Tracing Is Going To Be Different From Now On | Coronavirus
  3. “Stop the Steal” organizer testified to the House panel about contacts with GOP representatives before January 6
  4. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sued for Securities Law Violations; Investors should contact Block & Leviton for more information
Tagscontact tracingpublic health

Categories

  • Phone contact
  • Phonebook
  • Telecommunications network
  • Telephone book
  • Telephone directory

Recent Posts

  • HOMOLOGY MEDICINES, INC. Investors: Contact Portnoy Law Firm to Recover Losses
  • Can you get a jobless loan? Here’s what you need to know
  • 2022-23 Webster County Flat Book for Sale
  • Contact Free Sleep Monitoring Systems Market 2022: In-Depth Analysis of Emerging Trends, Growth Prospects, Application Demand and Technology Extensions by 2028 | SleepScore, Sense, Resmed, Samsung Laboratories
  • Rick Reilly on his latest golf book, the two sides of Phil Mickelson, and the moment he thought he was going to die in Greg Norman’s car | Golf News and Tour Information

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • July 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • October 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • May 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • December 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • September 2013
  • June 2013
  • September 2012
  • July 2012
  • January 2012
  • August 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • April 2010
  • February 2009
  • March 2007
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions