@article{RebitschekWagner2020,
  author    = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Wagner, Gert G.},
  title     = {Akzeptanz von assistiven Robotern im Pflege- und Gesundheitsbereich},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Gerontologie und Geriatrie},
  volume    = {53},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Gerontologie und Geriatrie},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Springer Medizin},
  address   = {Heidelberg},
  issn      = {0948-6704},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00391-020-01780-9},
  pages     = {637 -- 643},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Angesichts der Alterung der Gesellschaft und der hohen Kosten f{\"u}r die Unterst{\"u}tzung und Pflege in privaten Haushalten stellt sich die Frage, welche Rolle assistive Roboter spielen k{\"o}nnen. Dieser Beitrag richtet sich auf die Frage, inwieweit Roboter in der Pflege heute von der erwachsenen Bev{\"o}lkerung in Deutschland akzeptiert werden. Und inwieweit beeinflussen Geschlecht, Alter und Erfahrung (beruflich, pers{\"o}nlich) das Ausmaß dieser Akzeptanz? Die durchgef{\"u}hrten Auswertungen beruhen auf drei repr{\"a}sentativen Erhebungen mit insgesamt {\"u}ber 7000 Befragten. Zwei Erhebungen fanden in der 2. Jahresh{\"a}lfte 2017 im Auftrag der Deutschen Akademie der Technikwissenschaften (acatech) und des Lebensversicherers ERGO statt, die dritte Erhebung im Auftrag des Sachverst{\"a}ndigenrats f{\"u}r Verbraucherfragen (SVRV) im Fr{\"u}hjahr 2018. Eine vertiefte und kumulative Auswertung dieser Erhebungen und Datens{\"a}tze, die von den Autoren mitkonzipiert wurden, im Hinblick auf assistive Robotik ist bislang noch nicht ver{\"o}ffentlicht. Trotz unterschiedlicher erfragter Einsatzszenarien f{\"u}r Roboter in der Pflege stimmen die Ergebnisse aller 3 Erhebungen erstaunlich {\"u}berein: In Deutschland gibt es eine signifikante Minderheit von Menschen, die bereits jetzt eine funktionierende Betreuung von Robotern akzeptieren w{\"u}rden - sofern dadurch menschliche Pflege nicht ersetzt, sondern nur unterst{\"u}tzt w{\"u}rde. Ein gutes Drittel, das nach Alter und Geschlecht differenziert ist, lehnt die Assistenz durch Roboter grunds{\"a}tzlich ab.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{RebitschekGigerenzer2020,
  author    = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Gigerenzer, Gerd},
  title     = {Assessing the quality of digital health services},
  series = {Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz},
  volume    = {63},
  journal   = {Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1436-9990},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00103-020-03146-3},
  pages     = {665 -- 673},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Eine wichtige Voraussetzung f{\"u}r das Gelingen der Digitalisierung des Gesundheitswesens ist die digitale Risikokompetenz der Nutzer, also ihre F{\"a}higkeit, Nutzen und Schaden von digitalen Technologien und Informationen zu beurteilen, digitale Angebote kritisch zu nutzen und sich auch mit statistischer Evidenz auseinanderzusetzen. Wie finden Menschen qualit{\"a}tsgesicherte Gesundheitsinformationen und wie k{\"o}nnen sie die Qualit{\"a}t von algorithmischen Entscheidungssystemen besser beurteilen? In diesem narrativen Beitrag sollen zwei Ans{\"a}tze aufgezeigt werden, wie die F{\"a}higkeit zum informierten Entscheiden gef{\"o}rdert werden kann. Evidenzbasierte und verl{\"a}ssliche Gesundheitsinformationen existieren im Internet, m{\"u}ssen aber von einer Vielzahl unzuverl{\"a}ssiger Informationen unterschieden werden. Verschiedene Institutionen im deutschen Sprachraum haben deshalb Anleitungen bereitgestellt, um Laien eine informierte Entscheidung zu erleichtern. Beispielsweise hat das Harding-Zentrum f{\"u}r Risikokompetenz in Potsdam f{\"u}r diese Zwecke einen Entscheidungsbaum („fast-and-frugal tree") entwickelt. Im Umgang mit Algorithmen k{\"o}nnen nat{\"u}rliche H{\"a}ufigkeitsb{\"a}ume (NFTs) helfen, die G{\"u}te und Fairness eines algorithmischen Entscheidungssystems zu beurteilen. Neben zuverl{\"a}ssigen und verst{\"a}ndlichen digitalen Angeboten sollten weitere Werkzeuge f{\"u}r Laien zur Beurteilung von Informationen und Algorithmen entwickelt und bereitgestellt werden. Diese k{\"o}nnen auch in Schulungsprogramme zur digitalen Kompetenzf{\"o}rderung aufgenommen werden. Damit w{\"a}re ein wichtiger Schritt zum Gelingen der Digitalisierung in der Pr{\"a}vention und Gesundheitsf{\"o}rderung getan.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{RebitschekGigerenzerWagner2021,
  author    = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Gigerenzer, Gerd and Wagner, Gert G.},
  title     = {People underestimate the errors made by algorithms for credit scoring and recidivism prediction but accept even fewer errors},
  series = {Scientific reports},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Scientific reports},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Macmillan Publishers Limited},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2045-2322},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41598-021-99802-y},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {This study provides the first representative analysis of error estimations and willingness to accept errors in a Western country (Germany) with regards to algorithmic decision-making systems (ADM). We examine people's expectations about the accuracy of algorithms that predict credit default, recidivism of an offender, suitability of a job applicant, and health behavior. Also, we ask whether expectations about algorithm errors vary between these domains and how they differ from expectations about errors made by human experts. In a nationwide representative study (N = 3086) we find that most respondents underestimated the actual errors made by algorithms and are willing to accept even fewer errors than estimated. Error estimates and error acceptance did not differ consistently for predictions made by algorithms or human experts, but people's living conditions (e.g. unemployment, household income) affected domain-specific acceptance (job suitability, credit defaulting) of misses and false alarms. We conclude that people have unwarranted expectations about the performance of ADM systems and evaluate errors in terms of potential personal consequences. Given the general public's low willingness to accept errors, we further conclude that acceptance of ADM appears to be conditional to strict accuracy requirements.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RebitschekEllermannJennyetal.2022,
  author    = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Ellermann, Christin and Jenny, Miriam A. and Siegel, Nico A. and Spinner, Christian and Wagner, Gert G.},
  title     = {Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level},
  series = {PLOS ONE},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {PLOS ONE},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {PLOS},
  address   = {San Francisco},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0274186},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {OBJECTIVE: For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). RESULTS: Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. CONCLUSION: Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RebitschekEllermannJennyetal.2022,
  author    = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Ellermann, Christin and Jenny, Mirjam A. and Siegel, Nico A. and Spinner, Christian and Wagner, Gert G.},
  title     = {Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level},
  series = {PLOS ONE},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {PLOS ONE},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {PLOS},
  address   = {San Francisco},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0274186},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Objective For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). Results Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. Conclusion Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RebitschekEllermannJennyetal.2022,
  author    = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Ellermann, Christin and Jenny, Miriam A. and Siegel, Nico A. and Spinner, Christian and Wagner, Gert G.},
  title     = {Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-58867},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-588670},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {OBJECTIVE: For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). RESULTS: Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. CONCLUSION: Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.},
  language  = {en}
}