%0期刊文章%@ 2291-5222 %I JMIR出版物%V 10%卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析 N 7% P e35195 %T COVID-19联系人追踪应用程序的数据管理和隐私政策:系统综述和内容分析%A Bardus,Marco %A Al Daccache,Melodie %A Maalouf,Noel %A Al Sarih,Rayan %A Elhajj,Imad H %+伯明翰大学医学和牙科科学学院应用健康研究所，Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT，英国，44 0121 414 3344,marco.bardus@gmail.com %K COVID-19 %K移动应用程序%K接触追踪%D 2022 %7 12.7.2022 %9原始论文%J JMIR Mhealth Uhealth %G英文%X背景:COVID-19数字接触追踪应用程序的创建是为了帮助公共卫生当局遏制大流行。这些应用程序需要用户许可才能使用手机上的特定功能，如地理定位、蓝牙或Wi-Fi连接或个人数据，才能正常工作。由于这些功能对隐私有影响，建立联系追踪应用程序如何尊重用户隐私是至关重要的。目的:本研究旨在系统地映射现有的联系人跟踪应用程序，并评估所需的权限及其隐私政策。具体来说，我们评估了权限的类型、隐私策略的可读性以及其中包含的信息。方法:我们使用自定义谷歌搜索和现有的联系人跟踪应用程序列表来识别2020年5月至2021年11月之间潜在符合条件的应用程序。我们将带有谷歌Play网页的联系人追踪或曝光通知应用纳入其中，从中提取应用特征(如赞助商、安装数量和评级)。我们使用Exodus Privacy系统地提取权限数量，并将其分为危险或正常。 We computed a Permission Accumulated Risk Score representing the threat level to the user’s privacy. We assessed the privacy policies’ readability and evaluated their content using a 13-item checklist, which generated a Privacy Transparency Index. We explored the relationships between app characteristics, Permission Accumulated Risk Score, and Privacy Transparency Index using correlations, chi-square tests, or ANOVAs. Results: We identified 180 contact-tracing apps across 152 countries, states, or territories. We included 85.6% (154/180) of apps with a working Google Play page, most of which (132/154, 85.7%) had a privacy policy document. Most apps were developed by governments (116/154, 75.3%) and totaled 264.5 million installs. The average rating on Google Play was 3.5 (SD 0.7). Across the 154 apps, we identified 94 unique permissions, 18% (17/94) of which were dangerous, and 30 trackers. The average Permission Accumulated Risk Score was 22.7 (SD 17.7; range 4-74, median 16) and the average Privacy Transparency Index was 55.8 (SD 21.7; range 5-95, median 55). Overall, the privacy documents were difficult to read (median grade level 12, range 7-23); 67% (88/132) of these mentioned that the apps collected personal identifiers. The Permission Accumulated Risk Score was negatively associated with the average App Store ratings (r=−0.20; P=.03; 120/154, 77.9%) and Privacy Transparency Index (r=−0.25; P<.001; 132/154, 85.7%), suggesting that the higher the risk to one’s data, the lower the apps’ ratings and transparency index. Conclusions: Many contact-tracing apps were developed covering most of the planet but with a relatively low number of installs. Privacy-preserving apps scored high in transparency and App Store ratings, suggesting that some users appreciate these apps. Nevertheless, privacy policy documents were difficult to read for an average audience. Therefore, we recommend following privacy-preserving and transparency principles to improve contact-tracing uptake while making privacy documents more readable for a wider public. %M 35709334 %R 10.2196/35195 %U https://mhealth.www.mybigtv.com/2022/7/e35195 %U https://doi.org/10.2196/35195 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35709334