TY - JOUR A1 - Rebitschek, Felix G. A1 - Wagner, Gert G. T1 - Akzeptanz von assistiven Robotern im Pflege- und Gesundheitsbereich BT - Repräsentative Daten zeichnen ein klares Bild für Deutschland BT - Representative data show a clear picture for Germany JF - Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie N2 - Angesichts der Alterung der Gesellschaft und der hohen Kosten für die Unterstützung und Pflege in privaten Haushalten stellt sich die Frage, welche Rolle assistive Roboter spielen können. Dieser Beitrag richtet sich auf die Frage, inwieweit Roboter in der Pflege heute von der erwachsenen Bevölkerung in Deutschland akzeptiert werden. Und inwieweit beeinflussen Geschlecht, Alter und Erfahrung (beruflich, persönlich) das Ausmaß dieser Akzeptanz? Die durchgeführten Auswertungen beruhen auf drei repräsentativen Erhebungen mit insgesamt über 7000 Befragten. Zwei Erhebungen fanden in der 2. Jahreshälfte 2017 im Auftrag der Deutschen Akademie der Technikwissenschaften (acatech) und des Lebensversicherers ERGO statt, die dritte Erhebung im Auftrag des Sachverständigenrats für Verbraucherfragen (SVRV) im Frühjahr 2018. Eine vertiefte und kumulative Auswertung dieser Erhebungen und Datensätze, die von den Autoren mitkonzipiert wurden, im Hinblick auf assistive Robotik ist bislang noch nicht veröffentlicht. Trotz unterschiedlicher erfragter Einsatzszenarien für Roboter in der Pflege stimmen die Ergebnisse aller 3 Erhebungen erstaunlich überein: In Deutschland gibt es eine signifikante Minderheit von Menschen, die bereits jetzt eine funktionierende Betreuung von Robotern akzeptieren würden – sofern dadurch menschliche Pflege nicht ersetzt, sondern nur unterstützt würde. Ein gutes Drittel, das nach Alter und Geschlecht differenziert ist, lehnt die Assistenz durch Roboter grundsätzlich ab. N2 - In view of the ageing society and the high costs of support and care in private households, the question arises as to what role assistive robots can play. This article focuses on the extent to which robots in nursing are accepted by the adult population in Germany today, as well as the extent to which gender, age, and experience (professional and private) influence this level of acceptance. The analysis carried out for this purpose was based on three representative surveys conducted among a total of over 7000 respondents. Of these surveys two were conducted in the second half of 2017 on behalf of the German Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech) and the life insurance company ERGO, while the third was commissioned by the German Council of Economic Experts (SVRV) in the spring of 2018. An in-depth and cumulative analysis of these surveys and data sets, which the authors helped to design, with respect to assistive robotics has not yet been published. Despite the different application scenarios for assistive care robots, the results of all three surveys are surprisingly consistent: in Germany there is already a significant minority of people who are open to, and would accept nursing care robots as long as they do not replace but rather support traditional human nursing. Roughly one third of the sample differentiated according to age and gender, fundamentally rejected assistance by robots. T2 - Acceptance of assistive robots in the field of nursing and healthcare KW - Einstellungen zur Pflegerobotik KW - „Ambient assisted living“ KW - Risiken und Vorteile KW - demografische Faktoren KW - repräsentative Studien Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-020-01780-9 SN - 0948-6704 SN - 1435-1269 VL - 53 IS - 7 SP - 637 EP - 643 PB - Springer Medizin CY - Heidelberg ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Rebitschek, Felix G. A1 - Gigerenzer, Gerd T1 - Assessing the quality of digital health services T1 - Einschätzung der Qualität digitaler Gesundheitsangebote BT - how can informed decisions be promoted? BT - wie können informierte Entscheidungen gefördert werden? JF - Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz N2 - Eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Gelingen der Digitalisierung des Gesundheitswesens ist die digitale Risikokompetenz der Nutzer, also ihre Fähigkeit, 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 qualitätsgesicherte Gesundheitsinformationen und wie können sie die Qualität von algorithmischen Entscheidungssystemen besser beurteilen? In diesem narrativen Beitrag sollen zwei Ansätze aufgezeigt werden, wie die Fähigkeit zum informierten Entscheiden gefördert werden kann. Evidenzbasierte und verlässliche Gesundheitsinformationen existieren im Internet, müssen aber von einer Vielzahl unzuverlässiger Informationen unterschieden werden. Verschiedene Institutionen im deutschen Sprachraum haben deshalb Anleitungen bereitgestellt, um Laien eine informierte Entscheidung zu erleichtern. Beispielsweise hat das Harding-Zentrum für Risikokompetenz in Potsdam für diese Zwecke einen Entscheidungsbaum („fast-and-frugal tree“) entwickelt. Im Umgang mit Algorithmen können natürliche Häufigkeitsbäume (NFTs) helfen, die Güte und Fairness eines algorithmischen Entscheidungssystems zu beurteilen. Neben zuverlässigen und verständlichen digitalen Angeboten sollten weitere Werkzeuge für Laien zur Beurteilung von Informationen und Algorithmen entwickelt und bereitgestellt werden. Diese können auch in Schulungsprogramme zur digitalen Kompetenzförderung aufgenommen werden. Damit wäre ein wichtiger Schritt zum Gelingen der Digitalisierung in der Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung getan. N2 - An important prerequisite for the success of the digitisation of the healthcare system are risk-literate users. Risk literacy means the ability to weigh potential benefits and harms of digital technologies and information, to use digital services critically, and to understand statistical evidence. How do people find reliable and comprehensible health information on the Internet? How can they better assess the quality of algorithmic decision systems? This narrative contribution describes two approaches that show how the competence to make informed decisions can be promoted. Evidence-based and reliable health information exists on the Internet but must be distinguished from a large amount of unreliable information. Various institutions in the German-speaking world have therefore provided guidance to help laypersons make informed decisions. The Harding Center for Risk Literacy in Potsdam, for example, has developed a decision tree ("fast-and-frugal tree"). When dealing with algorithms, natural frequency trees (NFTs) can help to assess the quality and fairness of an algorithmic decision system. Independent of reliable and comprehensible digital health services, further tools for laypersons to assess information and algorithms should be developed and provided. These tools can also be included in institutional training programmes for the promotion of digital literacy. This would be an important step towards the success of digitisation in prevention and health promotion. KW - risk literacy KW - informed decision-making KW - digital health information KW - algorithmic decision systems KW - algorithm performance KW - Risikokompetenz KW - Informiertes Entscheiden KW - Digitale Gesundheitsinformationen KW - Algorithmische Entscheidungssysteme KW - Algorithmengüte Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-020-03146-3 SN - 1436-9990 SN - 1437-1588 VL - 63 IS - 6 SP - 665 EP - 673 PB - Springer CY - New York ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Rebitschek, Felix G. A1 - Gigerenzer, Gerd A1 - Wagner, Gert G. T1 - People underestimate the errors made by algorithms for credit scoring and recidivism prediction but accept even fewer errors JF - Scientific reports N2 - 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. Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99802-y SN - 2045-2322 VL - 11 IS - 1 PB - Macmillan Publishers Limited CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Rebitschek, Felix G. A1 - Ellermann, Christin A1 - Jenny, Miriam A. A1 - Siegel, Nico A. A1 - Spinner, Christian A1 - Wagner, Gert G. T1 - Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level JF - PLOS ONE N2 - 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. Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274186 SN - 1932-6203 VL - 17 IS - 9 PB - PLOS CY - San Francisco ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Rebitschek, Felix G. A1 - Ellermann, Christin A1 - Jenny, Mirjam A. A1 - Siegel, Nico A. A1 - Spinner, Christian A1 - Wagner, Gert G. T1 - Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level JF - PLOS ONE N2 - 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 Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274186 SN - 1932-6203 VL - 17 IS - 9 PB - PLOS CY - San Francisco ER - TY - GEN A1 - Rebitschek, Felix G. A1 - Ellermann, Christin A1 - Jenny, Miriam A. A1 - Siegel, Nico A. A1 - Spinner, Christian A1 - Wagner, Gert G. T1 - Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level T2 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe - 9 Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-588670 IS - 9 ER -