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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.