4.6 Article

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

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250224

关键词

-

资金

  1. Advisory Council for Consumer Affairs at the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that insurers in Germany rarely use the features considered most relevant and justifiable by participants, and that programme acceptance is dependent on the acceptance of a few key features. Heuristic models can aid in designing scoring programmes that are more likely to be accepted.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据