Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33886618›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Acceptance of criteria for health and driver scoring in the general public in Germany.

Felix G Rebitschek, Gerd Gigerenzer, Ariane Keitel, Sarah Sommer, Christian Groß, Gert G Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Felix G RebitschekHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7653-8278
Gerd GigerenzerHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Potsdam, Germany.
Ariane KeitelFederal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Berlin, Germany.
Sarah SommerAdvisory Council for Consumer Affairs, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Berlin, Germany.
Christian GroßAdvisory Council for Consumer Affairs, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Berlin, Germany.
Gert G WagnerHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5985-4073

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous health insurers offer bonus programmes that score customers' health behaviour, and car insurers offer telematics tariffs that score driving behaviour. In many countries, however, only a minority of customers participate in these programmes. In a population-representative survey of private households in Germany (N = 2,215), we study the acceptance of the criteria (features) on which the scoring programmes are based: the features for driver scoring (speed, texting while driving, time of driving, area of driving, accelerating and braking behaviour, respectively) and for health scoring (walking distance per day, sleeping hours per night, alcohol consumption, weight, participation in recommended cancer screenings, smoking status). In a second step, we model participants' acceptance of both programmes with regard to the underlying feature acceptance. We find that insurers in Germany rarely use the features which the participants consider to be the most relevant and justifiable, that is, smoking status for health scoring and smartphone use for driver scoring. Heuristic models (fast-and-frugal trees) show that programme acceptance depends on the acceptance of a few features. These models can help to understand customers' preferences and to design scoring programmes that are based on scientific evidence regarding behaviours and factors associated with good health and safe driving and are thus more likely to be accepted.

Indexed as

Automobile DrivingHealth BehaviorInsurance CarriersInsurance, HealthAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33886618
PMCPMC8062065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.