literature review about insurance

• DOI: 10.18488/journal.1.2018.81.28.33
• Corpus ID: 148617321

Insurance Awareness: A Literature Review

• N. Ismail , M. Husin , +1 author Normaisarah Binti Abdul Manaf
• Published 2018
• Business, Economics
• International journal of Asian social science

Figures and Tables from this paper

3 Citations

Mapping in the topic of mathematical model in paddy agricultural insurance based on bibliometric analysis: a systematic review approach, impact of government health and education expenditures on insurance demand: ardl model, świadomość ubezpieczeniowa pracowników biur rachunkowych w polsce, 29 references, awareness and willingness to pay for health insurance: a study of darjeeling district, awareness and impact of globalization of life insurance in india.

• Highly Influential

An Empirical Study of the Level of Awareness towards Various Rights and Duties among the Insured Households in Rajasthan, India

Influence of awareness on the usage of motor third party insurance: a case study of kampala district., rural households’ awareness and willingness to pay for national health insurance scheme (nhis) in ilesha west local government area, osun state nigeria: a recursive bivariate probit approach, awareness and using status on long-term care insurance and insurance benefits, assessment of the level of awareness and perception of motor third party insurance in kampala, uganda, awareness of maternal health services among micro health insurance beneficiaries, insurance a ray of hope: a study on the level of awareness of private players in the insurance industry, [factors influencing oral insurance among children in chengdu]., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Search term Advanced Search Citation Search
• Individual login
• Institutional login
• Risk Management and Insurance Review

Edited By: Annette Hofmann

Journal list menu

• Journal More from this journal -->

Follow journal

Risk Management and Insurance Review (RMIR) publishes respected, accessible, and high-quality applied research, and well-reasoned opinion and discussion in the field of risk and insurance. In addition to full-length ‘Feature Articles’ and ‘Perspectives,’ the journal publishes 'Data Insights' which highlight new or underutilized sources of data relevant to current risk management and insurance policy making. RMIR is sponsored by the American Risk and Insurance Association.

The Review’s “Feature Articles” section includes original research involving applications and applied techniques. Submissions may be theoretical, empirical, or conceptual in nature and are subject to an anonymous peer-review process. The “Perspectives Articles” section contains articles providing new insights on research literature, business practice, and public policy. These articles may be primarily scholarly (i.e., of a survey or historical nature) or may consist of opinion and discussion. Submissions to the Perspectives Articles section are also subject to an anonymous peer-review process. "Data Insights" are papers that highlight new or underutilized sources of data relevant to current risk management and insurance policy making. Papers should provide a brief discussion of the data and include a brief analysis that is suitable for non-academic readers. Ideal papers will emphasize the credibility and reliability of the data and explain how the data may be useful for policy making and further policy-relevant research. Manuscripts submitted for the Data Insights section are subject to an expedited anonymous peer-review process and must not exceed 2,000 words. Authors should emphasize the main findings in the opening paragraphs.

The  Annual Meeting 2024

The Annual Meeting of the American Risk and Insurance Association will be held August 4-7, 2024, at The Westin Denver Downtown, Denver, Colorado, USA. Papers presented at the annual meeting will mostly include those submitted by individuals. Session chairs are also invited to propose a full session of up to three papers based on a specific topic (symposium submission). ARIA encourages a broad and varied participation thus the highest quality meeting for attendees from a variety of perspectives. Learn more here .

• Most Recent

Unaffordable, untrustworthy, or unnecessary? Reasons for foregoing building, home contents, and comprehensive car insurance in disaster‐prone Australia

• First Published:  27 July 2024
• Request permissions

Issue Information

• Pages:  125-127
• First Published:  27 June 2024

ARIA Membership Information

• Pages:  237-237

ARIA 2024 Annual Meeting

• Pages:  238-238

New York's experience with building an insurance marketplace: A decade of success and lessons learned

• Pages:  217-225
• First Published:  25 June 2024

The Determinants of Enterprise Risk Management: Evidence From the Appointment of Chief Risk Officers

• Pages:  37-52
• First Published:  10 June 2003

Risk Management: History, Definition, and Critique

• Pages:  147-166
• First Published:  21 October 2013

Cyber risk management: History and future research directions

• Pages:  93-125
• First Published:  9 March 2021

Financing Flood Losses: A Discussion of the National Flood Insurance Program

• Pages:  11-32
• First Published:  25 March 2018

The Relationship Between Insurance and Economic Development: 85 Empirical Papers for a Review of the Literature

• Pages:  71-122
• First Published:  14 September 2012

The Effect of Data Breaches on Shareholder Wealth

• Pages:  61-83
• First Published:  1 March 2010

The Impact of Denial‐of‐Service Attack Announcements on the Market Value of Firms

• Pages:  97-121
• First Published:  30 October 2003

Determinants and Value of Enterprise Risk Management: Empirical Evidence From the Literature

• Pages:  29-53
• First Published:  26 March 2015

The Effect of Corporate Governance on the Use of Enterprise Risk Management: Evidence From Canada

• Pages:  53-73

CAT Bonds and Other Risk-Linked Securities: State of the Market and Recent Developments

• Pages:  23-47
• First Published:  4 March 2008

Latest news

Recent issues, special issue on health insurance, sign up for email alerts.

Enter your email to receive alerts when new articles and issues are published.

Please select your location and accept the terms of use. Country or location * Open this select menu Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire, Sint Eustatius And Saba Bosnia And Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands Holy See (vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic Of Iraq Ireland Isle Of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic Of Korea, Republic Of Kosovo, Republic Of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States Of Moldova, Republic Of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre And Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome And Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic Of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Türkiye Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic Of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.s. Wallis And Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

• Submit an article
• Journal Metrics
• Subscribe to this journal

Published on behalf of the American Risk and Insurance Association

More from this journal

• Professional Opportunities
• Best Article Awards

Associated Title(s):

• Journal of Risk and Insurance

Log in to Wiley Online Library

Change password, your password must have 10 characters or more:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create a new account

Forgot your password.

Enter your email address below.

Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

Insurance Awareness: A Literature Review

• Author & abstract
• 1 Citations
• Related works & more

Corrections

• Noraini Ismail
• Maizaitulaidawati Md Md Husin
• Izzaamirah Ishak
• Normaisarah Abdul Manaf

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

Advertisement

Health insurance literacy assessment tools: a systematic literature review

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 03 August 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 1137–1150, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutiérrez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1649-6680 1  

3757 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This systematic literature review aimed to find and summarize the content and conceptual dimensions assessed by quantitative tools measuring Health Insurance Literacy (HIL) and related constructs.

Using a Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategy (PRESS) and the PRISMA guideline, a systematic literature review of studies found in ERIC, Econlit, PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Google Scholar was performed in April 2019. Measures for which psychometric properties were evaluated were classified based on the Paez et al. conceptual model for HIL and further assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist and criteria for good measurement properties.

Out of 123 original tools, only 19 were tested for psychometric and measurement properties; 18 of these 19 measures were developed and used in the context of Medicare. Four of the found measures tested for psychometric properties evaluated all four domains of HIL according to Paez et al.’s conceptual model; the rest of the measures assessed three (3), two (8), or one domain (4) of HIL.

Most measurement tools for HIL and related constructs have been developed and used in the context of the USA health insurance system, primarily in Medicare, while there is a paucity of measurement tools for private health insurances and from other countries. Furthermore, there is a lack of conceptual consistency in the way HIL is measured. Standardization of HIL measurement is crucial to further understand the role and interactions of HIL in other insurance contexts.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Swiss Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM-CH): Measurement Properties and Cross-Cultural Validation

Association of Health Insurance Literacy with Health Care Utilization: a Systematic Review

The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The selection of a less-than-optimal plan for a specific individual, or the complete lack of coverage, can have severe financial and health consequences (Bhargava and Loewenstein 2015 ; Bhargava et al. 2015 , 2017 ; Flores et al. 2017 ). Simultaneously, health insurance represents one of the most complex and costly products individuals consume (Paez et al. 2014 ). A survey commissioned in 2008 by eHealth, Inc., an online marketplace for health insurance in the USA, found that most consumers lack a basic understanding of health insurance terms. Similarly, consumer testing in the USA found that low numeracy and confusion regarding cost-sharing terms can hinder optimal selection of a health plan (Quincy 2012a ). A more recent study using data collected from nonelderly adults in the June 2014 wave of the Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS) found that both literacy and numeracy were more likely to be lower for uninsured adults compared to insured ones, especially for those with lower income and eligibility for subsidized coverage. The authors concluded that “gaps in literacy and numeracy among the uninsured will likely make navigating the health care system difficult” (Long et al. 2014 ). Another study from the USA, found a negative association between insurance comprehension and odds of choosing a plan that was at least $500 more expensive annually compared to the cheapest option, concluding that both health insurance comprehension and numeracy were critical skills in choosing a health insurance plan that provides adequate risk protection (Barnes et al. 2015 ).

In light of these findings, and the introduction of the Affordable Care Act in the USA, the concept of health insurance literacy (HIL) has gained increasing attention over the past decade.

In 2009, McCormack and colleagues developed the first framework and instrument to measure HIL by integrating insights from the fields of health literacy and financial literacy. The instrument was originally developed to measure HIL of older adults in the USA. The study found that, in line with previous research, older adults, and those with lower education and income had lower levels of HIL (McCormack et al. 2009 ). In 2011, a roundtable sponsored by the Consumers Union in the USA that included experts from academia, advocacy, health insurance, and private research firms defined HIL as “the degree to which individuals have the knowledge, ability, and confidence to find and evaluate information about health plans, select the best plan for their own (or their family’s) financial and health circumstances, and use the plan once enrolled” (Quincy 2012b ).

In 2014, the American Institute of Research in the USA developed a conceptual model for HIL and the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) (Paez et al. 2014 ). The model was developed using information collected from: a literature review, key informant interviews, and a stakeholder group discussion. The conceptual model consists of four domains of HIL: health insurance knowledge, information seeking, document literacy, and cognitive skills, with self-efficacy as an underlying domain. In contrast to the previously mentioned framework of McCormak and colleagues (McCormack et al. 2009 ), which focused on the Medicare population, Paez et al.’s conceptual model was developed and used in the context of private health insurance.

Even though research on HIL is still in its early stages, studies show that HIL may influence how individuals use and choose health insurance services (Loewenstein et al. 2013 ; Barnes et al. 2015 ), seek health insurance information (Tennyson 2011 ), and use health services (Edward et al. 2018 ; Tipirneni et al. 2018 ; James et al. 2018 ). So far, most research addressing HIL has taken place in the USA, with relatively little literature on the topic coming from other countries. Furthermore, early literature focused mainly on consumer’s understanding of their health insurance (Lambert 1980 ; Marquis 1983 ; Cafferata 1984 ; McCall et al. 1986 ; Garnick et al. 1993 ) resulting in the use of inconsistent terminology.

Given the still recent definition of HIL and inconsistency of its assessment at the international level, this review includes HIL and related constructs such as health insurance knowledge, understanding, familiarity, comprehension, and numeracy, with the goal of identifying assessment tools that cover the domains on Paez et al.’s conceptual model for HIL.

Specifically, this review aims to (1) identify and summarize the content of tools that aim to assess HIL and related constructs, (2) describe conceptual dimensions assessed by psychometrically tested measures and when possible, (3) briefly discuss the methodological quality of measurement development and psychometric properties the found tools.

After consulting with a librarian and performing a Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategy (PRESS)(McGowan et al. 2016 ), a systematic literature search was conducted in April 2019 to identify studies using quantitative and mixed methods tools aiming to assess HIL and related constructs. In order to identify measures assessing HIL and related constructs, search terms that were used included constructs that are described in the HIL frameworks previously introduced (McCormack et al. 2009 ; Paez et al. 2014 ). Examples of search terms include “health insurance literacy,” “health insurance,” “health plan,” “Medicare,” “knowledge,” “understand*,” or “instrument” (a full list of search terms and PRESS derived search strings used can be found on Online Resource 1 ). The following databases were searched: ERIC, Econlit, PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Screening of titles and abstracts, full texts; and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached, and a third researcher was consulted when no consensus was attained.

The literature search was complemented through environmental scan and reference-harvesting, which involved reaching out to researchers for gray literature and finding relevant references from bibliographies of included studies, respectively. Screening, data extraction, and PRISMA diagram generation was completed using Distiller SR (DistillerSR n.a. ). Statistical software Stata 16 was used to synthesize information and generate figures (StataCorp LLC 2019 ).

The review is in accordance with the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (Moher et al. 2009 ). The PRISMA diagram (Fig.  1 ) illustrates the number of articles found through different sources, those eliminated due to deduplication or exclusion, and the final count of studies included in the review.

PRISMA diagram

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The main inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarized in Table 1 using the PICoS pneumonic (Population, phenomenon of Interest, Context, Study design) (Lockwood et al. 2015 ).

Studies with any target population were included, except for those limited to health professionals, health insurance experts, or students of disciplines such as medicine, pharmacy, and nursing.

To be included, studies had to describe in sufficient detail the measure that was used to assess HIL or a related construct. Sufficient description included, but was not limited to, whether the used measure was subjective (i.e., self-reported) or objective; number of items, HIL domains assessed by the measure according to the Paez. et al. conceptual model (Paez et al. 2014 ), and country. The review was limited to quantitative and mixed methods measures. Purely qualitative measures were excluded. The search was not restricted to any time period or country. Inclusion of publications was limited to those published in English.

Cross-sectional, cohort and case-control studies were included. Studies which described an intervention to improve HIL or related constructs were included only if baseline levels were assessed.

In the case of studies in which a measure was used or mentioned but was not thoroughly described, authors were contacted. Those studies for which no further or sufficient information could be obtained were excluded.

Data extraction

Found measurement tools were categorized according to characteristics, such as originality of the measure: if it was a previously developed measure or if it was a mixed measure, meaning the measure had been previously developed but was supplemented with additional items or items were adapted from previously used measures. Further characteristics included the number of items, whether the measure was quantitative or used a mixed method such as coding of answers to open questions; if measures were objective and/or subjective; design of the study in which the measurement tool was used, e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc.

Measures for which psychometric properties were evaluated, were categorized using Paez. et al.’s conceptual model (Paez et al. 2014 ), by domains and number of domains assessed. This conceptual model was selected for several reasons. First, it was developed with purchasers of private health insurance in mind, rather than being focused on Medicare, which is the case of the model from McCormack et al. (Tseng et al. 2009 ). Second, it focuses on domains and domain-specific tasks that make up the concept of HIL, rather than showcasing factors that may explain different levels of HIL (Vardell 2017 ). Finally, the conceptual model by Paez et al. ( 2014 ) is the most recent attempt at conceptualizing and operationalizing the concept of HIL. Measures for which insufficient information was provided regarding the assessment of measurement properties were not included in this section.

Psychometrically tested measures were further assessed for methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist (Terwee et al. 2018 ; Mokkink et al. 2018 ); a modular tool which provides standards to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on outcome measures. The checklist allows the assessment of the methodological quality of measure development, including content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness; for definitions of these measurement properties please refer to Online Resource 2 .

The methodological quality of the studies on outcome measures was rated as very good, adequate, doubtful, or inadequate quality; according to COSMIN standards, only when sufficient information was available to do so. Overall rating for methodological quality was given by selecting the lowest or “worst score counts” rating for each of the domains assessed per COSMIN guidelines. Because there is no established gold-standard to assess HIL, and none of the measures were tested for cross-cultural validity, criterion validity and cross-cultural validity were not assessed. The levels of evidence of the overall study quality for measurement properties was determined using the GRADE approach specified in the COSMIN manual. The quality of the evidence was determined using a four-scale grading: high, moderate, low, and very low. Quality of measurement properties was assessed according to the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties when possible (Mokkink et al. 2018 ).

Given that the main focus of this systematic literature review is the content and conceptual comparison of the found psychometrically tested measures, the methodological quality of the studies and quality of measurement properties are only briefly discussed.

The PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 1 ) summarizes the results of the search process. The search yielded a total of 7700 publications and 9 more were found through hand search, resulting in 7709 items. After deduplication, the abstracts of the remaining 5620 unique records were screened out of which 408 were included for full-text screening. After full-text screening, a total of 189 publications were selected for inclusion in the qualitative analysis and synthesis.

Out of these 189, 108 used original measures, 67 used previously developed instruments, and 14 combined previously developed measures with new items; 171 of the studies used quantitative methods while 18 used mixed methods, see for example De Gagne et al. ( 2015 ) and Desselle ( 2003 ).

The frequency of papers published related to the topic of HIL and similar constructs has increased over time, especially since 2015 (Fig.  2 ). Over 80% of these publications are from the USA (151), while the rest comes from other countries (see Fig.  3 for all countries).

Frequency of publications per year

Frequency of publications per country

Characteristics of measures

One hundred twenty-three original measures for HIL or related constructs were found. Out of these, 109 were quantitative (88.6%). When categorized based on the number of domains assessed according to the Paez et al. conceptual model, approximately 66% (72) of the original quantitative measures assessed only one domain, 19.3% (21) measured two domains, 8.3% (9) three, and 6.4% (7) assessed all four domains. Out of the original quantitative measures assessing only one domain, most measures (68) evaluated knowledge.

The most used measures and questions were derived from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) (24), Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) (13), Kaiser Family Foundation quiz (8), United States Household Health Reform Monitoring Survey (5), and S-TOFHLA for functional health literacy (5).

Psychometrically tested measures

Nineteen of the measures found, were evaluated for psychometric properties. These assessed at least one HIL domain according to the Paez et al. conceptual model (2014) and presented information on development and measurement properties. Eighteen of these measures were developed and used to evaluate Medicare beneficiaries’ knowledge in the USA. The most recent psychometrically tested measure found, the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), is the only one attempting to assess consumers’ ability to select and use private health insurance.

A summary of the measures for which psychometric properties were evaluated can be found in Table 2 . Table 3 describes the HIL domains assessed with these measures according to the Paez et al. conceptual model (2014). Table 4 summarizes the evaluation of the measurement properties quality. Information on the methodological quality of measurement development, methodological quality of studies assessing measurement properties, and measurement properties of the found psychometrically tested measures can be found in Online Resources 3 , 4 , and 5 , respectively. Level of evidence was moderate for all the following measures, which are listed in Table 2 , as only one study of adequate quality is available for most of them. Quality of measurement development was deemed inadequate for all measures as there was no information on the measurement development, or it lacked the inclusion of a target population sample.

As measures developed in the context of Medicare and specifically the MCBS represent the most widely used in the found studies, these will be discussed in the following chronologically in the order in which they were used, followed by the assessment of the HILM.

1995–1998 MCBS measures

Six measures were created by using existing items from different waves of the MCBS from 1995 to 1998 (Bann et al. 2000 ). The aim of these measures was to evaluate the impact of the National Medicare Education Program (NMEP) project, an initiative to develop informational resources for Medicare.

The first two of these measures were single item questions that assessed the understandability of the Medicare program, called the “Medicare Understandability Question” and the “Global Know-All-Need-To-Know Question.”

The “Know-All-Need-To-Know Index” consisted of five questions included in two rounds of the MCBS, in 1996 and 1998. It assessed how much individuals felt they knew about different aspects of Medicare, Medigap, benefits, health expenses, and finding and choosing health providers.

An eight-item true/false quiz, referred to as the “Eight-item Quiz” consisted of items that were included in one round in 1998. Items aimed to assess knowledge on Medicare options and managed care plans through true/false/not sure statements.

Similarly, a “four-item quiz,” and a “three-item quiz” were also generated by including true/false MCBS items used in 1998.

Results on measurement properties for the above described measures were presented in two papers (Bann et al. 2000 ; Bonito et al. 2000 ), which showed that the methodological quality varied between very good and adequate for structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, construct validit, and responsiveness. Internal consistency for the “Know-All-Need-To-Know index” and the “Eight-item quiz” was determined as sufficient, while the “Four-item quiz” and “Three-item quiz” was insufficient. Content validity and structural validity were indeterminate for all measures included in this set. Hypothesis testing was sufficient as well as responsiveness for all measures.

Kansas City index and national evaluation index

The “Kansas City Index” and the “National Evaluation Index” were measures designed to evaluate the impact of Medicare information material on beneficiaries’ knowledge, all of the questions could be answered by consulting the Medicare & You handbook (Medicare and You n.a. ).

The “Kansas City Index” (Bonito et al. 2000 ; McCormack et al. 2002 ) is a 15-item measure that was used to evaluate the impact of different interventions such as the distribution of the Medicare & You handbook, and the Medicare & You bulletin on Medicare beneficiary knowledge in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

The “National Evaluation Index” (Bonito et al. 2000 ; Mccormack and Uhrig 2003 ) is a 22-item index that reflects Medicare related knowledge in seven different content areas: awareness of Medicare options, access to original Medicare, cost implications of insurance choices, coverage/benefits, plan rules/restrictions, availability of information, and beneficiary rights.

Methodological quality for the assessment of measurement properties was either very good or adequate for structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. Methodological quality for the assessment of measurement error was considered doubtful both for the “Kansas City Index” and the “National City Index” since the time period between responses was approximately two years (Bonito et al. 2000 ), as it is recommended to be measured over shorter intervals, especially to assess test-retest reliability (Terwee et al. 2007 ).

Regarding the quality of measurement properties, both the “Kansas City Index” and the “National Evaluation Index” met sufficient criteria for internal consistency, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Quality of content validity and structural validity was indeterminate.

2002 Questionnaire, knowledge quizzes, and health literacy quizzes

Uhrig et al. (Uhrig et al. 2002 ) developed a questionnaire composed of 99 questions based on recommendation from Bonito et al. (Bonito et al. 2000 ) to develop a knowledge index using Item Response Theory (IRT), which would allow measuring and tracking Medicare beneficiaries’ knowledge over time. Questions were cognitively tested and calibrated using IRT to develop six alternative forms of quizzes: three on Medicare knowledge and three on health literacy specific for Medicare beneficiaries focused on insurance-related terminology and scenarios (Bann and McCormack 2005 ). These six measures were generated to demonstrate how the different items in the previously generated questionnaire could be used to create dynamic quizzes to be integrated in the MCBS, using different questions throughout the waves of the survey, yet providing comparable results for longitudinal studies and allowing quizzes to be updated when items became irrelevant or there were policy changes.

The development of the questionnaire items described by Uhrig et al. (Uhrig et al. 2002 ) was based on a background research, review of existing Medicare informational materials and knowledge surveys, and discussions with experts in the field. Questions were generated and selected to cover five knowledge areas: eligibility for and structure of Original Medicare, Medicare+Choice (an alternative model of Medicare), plan choices and health plan decision-making, information and assistance, and Medigap/Employer-sponsored supplemental insurance. Four additional question categories were included: self-reported knowledge, health literacy, cognitive abilities, and other non-knowledge items. The questionnaire was pilot tested within the MCBS and the resulting data was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the items and to calibrate them using IRT. After completing item calibration, the authors generated the three alternative forms of “knowledge” quizzes and three alternative forms of “health literacy” quizzes (Bann and McCormack 2005 ). Items were selected by the authors so that each of the forms would contain at least one item from each of the identified content areas, items with similar total correct percentages, high slopes, a variety of difficulty levels, as well as items that seem relevant from a policy standpoint. The three knowledge measures contained one Original Medicare section and one Medicare+Choice section, covering both factors in each of the forms. Similarly, the three “Health Literacy” measures contained sections for two different factors, a terminology, and a reading comprehension one.

Methodological quality on measurement properties for the 99-item questionnaire is adequate for structural validity. Methodology for structural validity, construct validity, comparison with other instruments, and comparison between subgroups was adequate for all quizzes, while quality for Internal consistency, reliability, and measurement error was very good.

In regard to measurement properties, content validity was inconsistent for the 99-item questionnaire, while it met the sufficient criteria for structural validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. The “Knowledge” and “Health Literacy” measures forms A, B, and C met the sufficient criteria for hypothesis testing and responsiveness, while internal consistency was insufficient, and content validity and structural validity was indeterminate.

Perceived knowledge index (PKI) and seven-item quiz (2003)

In a paper published in 2003, Bann et al. used data from rounds of the MCBS 1998 and 1999 to develop two different knowledge indices to measure knowledge of Medicare beneficiaries. The first of these indices is the “Perceived Knowledge Index” (PKI), a five-item measure constructed from questions included in two different rounds of the MCBS. The questions assessed how much beneficiaries felt they knew about different aspects of Medicare. The second index was a seven-item quiz, made up of questions also included in two different rounds of the MCBS, which used true/false questions to test objective knowledge of Medicare (Bann et al. 2003 ).

For both the PKI and the “Seven-item quiz” the methodological quality of the following were adequate: analysis of structural validity, internal consistency, known-groups validity, and comparison between subgroups was very good, while also having convergent validity and comparison with other instruments.

Both PKI and the “Seven-item quiz” met sufficient criteria for internal consistency, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Content validity was indeterminate.

HIL framework and health insurance literacy items (MCBS) (2009)

In 2009, McCormack et al. published a paper in which they described the development of a framework and measurement instrument for HIL in the context of Medicare (McCormack et al. 2009 ). The framework was built based on a literature review and additional key studies. It integrates consumer and health care system variables that would be associated with HIL and the navigation of the health care and health insurance systems. Items were developed to operationalize the framework and cognitively tested and eventually fielded in the MCBS national survey.

Methodological quality for the analysis of structural validity, internal consistency, known-groups validity, and comparison between subgroups was considered to be very good. Reliability, convergent validity, and comparison with other instruments had adequate methodological quality.

The measure met sufficient measurement properties criteria for internal consistency, hypothesis and responsiveness was met. Structural validity was insufficient and content validity was indeterminate.

Health insurance literacy measure (HILM) (2014)

The Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), a self-assessment measure that was constructed based on formative research and stakeholder guidance. The conceptual basis of the measure is the Health Insurance Literacy conceptual model by Paez et al. (Paez et al. 2014 ), which was previously described.

The HILM was developed using a four-stage process. First a conceptual model for HIL was constructed. Once the conceptual model was finalized, two pools of items were created to operationalize its domains. Stage three consisted of cognitive testing of the items. Finally, the last stage involved field-testing of the HILM to develop scales and establish its validity.

When assessing methodological quality of the study on measurement properties, comprehensibility for the HILM was set to doubtful while relevance was adequate. Structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, known groups validity, comparison between subgroups and comparison before and after intervention were very good. Convergent validity and comparison with other instruments were inadequate.

Concerning measurement properties, evidence for content validity was found to be inconsistent. Criteria for structural validity was insufficient, while sufficient criteria for internal consistency, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness was met.

This review demonstrates the wide variety of instruments that have been used to assess HIL and related constructs. While the increasing body of evidence around HIL and related constructs, such as health insurance knowledge or understanding has provided valuable insights into the topic, further steps are needed to improve the quality and value of gathered data and reduce waste in research (Ioannidis et al. 2014 ).

Over 80% of the studies that were found through this review were carried out in the USA. Reforms and expansion of social health programs in the USA such as Medicare have played an important role in the growing interest in HIL. This is reflected in the fact that most of the instruments for which psychometric properties were evaluated identified through this review have been developed and used in the context of Medicare, which consists of a very specific population exclusive to the USA and its health insurance system. Only one of the psychometrically tested instruments, as well as its underlying conceptual model (Paez et al. 2014 ) was developed and used in the context of private health insurance. However, it was still exclusive to the USA health insurance system and its population.

Furthermore, the domains and aspects assessed by these measures focus mostly on knowledge. This is the only domain assessed by all found psychometrically tested measures. Out of the 19 found psychometrically tested measures, four assessed all domains of HIL according to the conceptual model of Paez et al. ( 2014 ), while 12 of them evaluate only one or two domains. Most of these measures not only ignore important aspects that are associated with the way people navigate the health insurance system and make health insurance and healthcare decisions, but they also make it difficult to compare results across studies and populations.

None of the measures reviewed included a sample of the target population in the development phase, which is important to evaluate comprehensiveness. As a result, the quality of measurement development was rated inadequate. Similarly, while assessment of reliability and measurement error was mentioned by some of the studies, little information was available to determine the quality of measurement properties for each individual measure.

A valid and reliable instrument tool to assess HIL may not only help to accurately measure an individual’s or population’s HIL level but can also provide ways of identifying vulnerable groups and guide the development and implementation of effective interventions to facilitate health system navigation, health insurance utilization and access. For example, deeper understanding of HIL could inform health insurance design and choice architecture to facilitate optimal health insurance selection (Barnes et al. 2019 ).

Given that existing HIL measurement tools are context-specific, further steps may require adaptation of current definitions of HIL, its conceptualization and operationalization according to specific health and health insurance systems. The McCormack et al. 2009 framework for HIL and the Paez et al. ( 2014 ) conceptual model for HIL might provide a foundation for measurement development and research in other contexts but should be adapted and instruments should be tested for validity.

Also, there are currently not enough standardized measures that would allow assessing HIL across different contexts and health insurance systems. The translation and cultural validation of the HILM could represent a viable solution to further research on specific health insurance systems. However, some of its limitations are that it is a self-administered and self-reported instrument, which may bring respondent-bias and provide a subjective perception of one’s own HIL rather than an objective assessment of it.

There are some limitations to this systematic literature review. First, the search was restricted to studies or papers published in English that used quantitative or mixed methods instruments to assess HIL and related constructs. Therefore, some relevant instruments may have been missed. Second, even though the COSMIN checklist and guideline for systematic reviews is a valuable tool for the evaluation and critical appraisal of outcome measures, it was originally developed to assess the methodological quality of health outcome measures, and may not be ideal for evaluating instruments assessing HIL.

Data availability

Data resulting from the systematic review can be requested from the corresponding author.

Code availability

Code for figure generation can be requested to the corresponding author.

Bann C, McCormack L (2005) Measuring knowledge and health literacy among medicare beneficiaries. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Reports/Research-Reports-Items/CMS062191.html

Bann C, Lissy K, Keller S, et al (2000) Analysis of medicare beneficiary baseline knowledge data from the medicare current beneficiary survey knowledge index technical note. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Reports/downloads/berkman_2003_7.pdf

Bann CM, Terrell SA, McCormack LA, Berkman ND (2003) Measuring beneficiary knowledge of the Medicare program: a psychometric analysis. Health Care Financ Rev 24:111–125

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Barnes A, Hanoch Y, Rice T (2015) Determinants of coverage decisions in health insurance marketplaces: consumers’ decision-making abilities and the amount of information in their choice environment. Health Serv Res 50:58–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12181

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Barnes AJ, Karpman M, Long SK et al (2019) More intelligent designs: comparing the effectiveness of choice architectures in US health insurance marketplaces. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.02.002

Bhargava S, Loewenstein G (2015) Choosing a health insurance plan: complexity and consequences. JAMA 314:2505–2506. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15176

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bhargava S, Loewenstein G, Sydnor J (2015) Do individuals make sensible health insurance decisions? Evidence from a menu with dominated options. NBER Working Papers 21160, National Bureau of Economic Research

Bhargava S, Loewenstein G, Benartzi S (2017) The cost of poor health (plan choices) & prescriptions for reform. Behav Sci 3:12

Google Scholar  

Bonito A, Bann C, Kuo M, et al (2000) Analysis of baseline measures in the Medicare current beneficiary survey for use in monitoring the national medicare education program. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Reports/Downloads/Bonito_2000_7.pdf . Accessed 23 Apr 2020

Cafferata GL (1984) Knowledge of their health insurance coverage by the elderly. Med Care 22:835–847

De Gagne J, PhD D, Oh J et al (2015) A mixed methods study of health care experience among Asian Indians in the southeastern United States. J Transcult Nurs 26:354–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659614526247

Desselle SP (2003) Consumers’ lack of awareness on issues pertaining to their prescription drug coverage. J Health Soc Policy 17:21–39

DistillerSR (n.a.) Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada. https://www.evidencepartners.com . Accessed April 2019-July 2020

Edward J, Morris S, Mataoui F et al (2018) The impact of health and health insurance literacy on access to care for Hispanic/Latino communities. Public Health Nurs 35:176–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12385

Flores G, Lin H, Walker C et al (2017) The health and healthcare impact of providing insurance coverage to uninsured children: A prospective observational study. BMC Public Health 17:Article number: 553. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4363-z

Article   Google Scholar  

Garnick D, Hendricks A, Thorpe K et al (1993) How well do Americans understand their health coverage? Health Aff 12:204–212. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.12.3.204

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA et al (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383:166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

James TG, Sullivan MK, Dumeny L, et al (2018) Health insurance literacy and health service utilization among college students. J Am Coll Heal 68:200–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1538151

Lambert ZV (1980) Elderly consumers’ knowledge related to Medigap protection needs. J Consum Aff 14:434–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1980.tb00680.x

Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K (2015) Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. JBI Evid Implement 13:179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062

Loewenstein G, Friedman JY, McGill B et al (2013) Consumers’ misunderstanding of health insurance. J Health Econ 32:850–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.04.004

Long S, Shartzer A, Polity M (2014) Low Levels of Self-Reported Literacy and Numeracy Create Barriers to Obtaining and Using Health Insurance Coverage. http://apps.urban.org/features/hrms/briefs/Low-Levels-of-Self-Reported-Literacy-and-Numeracy.html . Accessed 11 Feb 2019

Marquis MS (1983) Consumers’ knowledge about their health insurance coverage. Health Care Financ Rev 5:65–80

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McCall N, Rice T, Sangl J (1986) Consumer knowledge of Medicare and supplemental health insurance benefits. Health Serv Res 20:633–657

Mccormack L, Uhrig J (2003) How does beneficiary knowledge of the Medicare program vary by type of insurance? Med Care 41:972–978

McCormack LA et al (2002) Health insurance knowledge among Medicare beneficiaries. Health Serv Res 37:43–63

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McCormack L, Bann C, Uhrig J et al (2009) Health insurance literacy of older adults. J Consum Aff 43:223–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2009.01138.x

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM et al (2016) PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 75:40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

Medicare & You | Medicare (n.a.) https://www.medicare.gov/medicare-and-you . Accessed 8 Oct 2020b

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick D et al (2018) COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 27:1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

Paez KA, Mallery CJ, Noel H et al (2014) Development of the health insurance literacy measure (HILM): conceptualizing and measuring consumer ability to choose and use private health insurance. J Health Commun 19:225–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.936568

Quincy L (2012a) What’s behind the door: consumer difficulties selecting health plans. In: Consumers union. https://consumersunion.org/research/whats-behind-the-door-consumer-difficulties-selecting-health-plans/ . Accessed 17 Jul 2018

Quincy L (2012b) Measuring health insurance literacy: a call to action. https://consumersunion.org/pub/Health_Insurance_Literacy_Roundtable_rpt.pdf . Accessed 17 Jul 2018

StataCorp LLC (2019) Stata statistical software: release 16. StataCorp LLC, College Station

Tennyson S (2011) Consumers’ insurance literacy: evidence from survey data. Finan Serv Rev 20:165–179

Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A et al (2018) COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res 27:1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tipirneni R, Politi MC, Kullgren JT et al (2018) Association between health insurance literacy and avoidance of health care services owing to cost. JAMA Netw Open 1:e184796. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.4796

Tseng C-W, Dudley RA, Brook RH et al (2009) Elderly patients’ knowledge of drug benefit caps and communication with providers about exceeding caps. J Am Geriatr Soc 57:848–854. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02244.x

Uhrig J, Squire C, McCormack L, et al (2002) Questionnaire Development Final Report 110

Vardell EJ (2017) Health insurance literacy: how people understand and make health insurance purchase decisions. Ph.D., the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank in particular Prof. Dr. Stefan Boes, Dr. Sarah Mantwill, Aljosha Benjamin Hwang, Daniella Majakari, and Tess Bardy for their contribution to this review.

Open Access funding provided by Universität Luzern.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, Center for Health, Policy and Economics, University of Lucerne, Switzerland, Swiss Learning Health System, Frohburgstrasse 3, PO Box 4466, CH-6002, Lucerne, Switzerland

Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutiérrez

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, screening of titles and abstracts, screening of full texts, data collection, synthesis and analysis were performed by Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez. A second independent reviewer (non-author), Daniella Majakari performed screening of titles and abstracts as well as full texts. A third independent reviewer (non-author), Tess Bardy, performed data collection. Peer Review Search Strategy was conducted by Aljoscha Benjamin Hwang (non-author). Work was critically revised by Sarah Mantwill (non-author) and Prof. Dr. Stefan Boes (non-author).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutiérrez .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval

Not applicable. Given that this study is a systematic literature review, it involved no human subjects or animals.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

(DOC 91 kb)

(DOC 32 kb)

(DOC 123 kb)

(DOC 137 kb)

(DOC 117 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Quiroga Gutiérrez, A.C. Health insurance literacy assessment tools: a systematic literature review. J Public Health (Berl.) 31 , 1137–1150 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01634-7

Download citation

Received : 10 February 2021

Accepted : 30 June 2021

Published : 03 August 2021

Issue Date : July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01634-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Health insurance literacy
• Health insurance
• Health insurance decision making
• Health insurance education
• Health literacy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Customer Relationship Management

The Influence Of Insurance Service Reputation, Customer Relationship Management, And Price Attractiveness On Insurance Service Customer Customer Experience: A Literature Review

• February 2023
• International Journal of Business Economics and Social Development 4(1):32-37
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Universitas Widyatama

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Iyus Rustandi
• Ida Hindarsah

• Ankit Singh
• Dhruvi Shah
• Neli Nurzana
• Bustami Bustami
• Nabilah Zhafirah

• Michal Pohludka

• Dietilde Ndinelago Iipinge

• Basri Modding
• Jeni Kamase

• Wiliam Ardiyanto Wisnu Pratama
• Noneng Rokayah Sukatmadiredja
• Darwin Yuwono Riyanto
• Nurinda Rahmawati

• Acep Samsudin
• Theresia Militina

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Insurance Awareness: A Literature Review

2018, International Journal of Asian Social Science

Related Papers

International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management

Dhiraj Jain

IJIRST - International Journal for Innovative Research in Science and Technology

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to understand the customer awareness on car insurance policies with special reference to United India Insurance with the important element to improve the customer awareness towards insurance policies based on literature review and case study of successful vehicle Insurance Company. This study mainly focused on customer's awareness and satisfaction level on the car insurance policies offered by the company. Research Design: This research study is mainly based on the method of probability sampling with random sampling techniques, this research study is conducted within shivamogga city with the sample size of 150 respondents from the Primary data which is collected through structured questionnaire as a sample tool for the information's assembly, secondary data is collected by the magazine, journals of the marketing, articles and books, Findings: From the study came to know that respondents or policy holders are not aware about the terms and conditions, procedures of claiming during the time of damage or loss of the insurance policy offered by the company. Results: United India Insurance Corporation is a well-known insurance organization in the field of vehicle insurance Business which is a leading insurance sectors in providing service to the customers and customers are well satisfied with the price of the insurance policies offered by the united India insurance organization to the customers. Conclusion: From this study it is cleared that most of the policy holders are not aware about the procedures, terms and conditions, policies premium calculation procedure based on vehicle ID value, age, model etc. The concept of car insurance policies is very much needed aspects to the people who have owned a car, having car insurance policies makes the customers feel protected from the loss or damage if caused by the accident.

Sarang S Bhola

In 2012, Life insurance penetration in India which is the major indicator of growth of insurance in the country was just 3.17 % compared to Japan 9.2%, Taiwan 15.0% S. Korea 6.9%. (IRDA Annual Report 2012-13, p121-122) One of the important reasons for low penetration was/is unawareness of the Indian people about need of insurance in their life. It is true that with the establishment of IRDA and with the entry of private sector insurance companies, life insurance market is witnessing introduction of innovative, need based and customer friendly products. However, still majority of the Indian population is either uninsured or under-insured. Yet, buying a life insurance policy is not a subject of preference on the 'agenda' of most of the Indian people. Those who take out an insurance policy give priority for tax exemption and saving rather than risk cover. This paper is an attempt to study the awareness about need of life insurance among the customers of LIC. This research revealed that the customers are aware about need of life insurance in their life and the Individual Agents of LIC are the major source of information for the policyholders.

European Journal of Business and Management

Weedige S Sanjeewa

Improved financial literacy is the key to informed decisions, protected consumers, financial independence, and peace of mind. Foremost literature reveals that while financial literacy required more special education to improve insurance literacy, the literature of consumers' insurance literacy is quite low. Defining and appropriately measuring insurance literacy is essential to understand the educational impact as well as barriers to better utilization of insurance products. Thus, we conducted a systematic literature review using PRISMA guidelines and analyzed 37 studies focusing on the construct validation criteria. This study developed a conceptual definition with an approach for a measurement instrument to address the current limitations in establishing a standardized measure of consumers' insurance literacy. We identified six knowledge dimensions and skill dimensions to be incorporated into an instrument developed to measure the insurance literacy construct. The study contributes to both insurance and financial literacy, and provide a foundation for further research into consumers' insurance literacy.

Shradha Parsekar

IntroductionHealth insurance is one of the important approaches that can help in boosting universal healthcare coverage through improved healthcare utilisation and financial protection. This objectives of this review are to identify various interventions implemented in India to promote awareness of health insurance, and to provide evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions on the awareness and uptake of health insurance by the resident Indian population.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be carried out based on the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The review will include experimental and analytical observational studies that have included adult population (>18 years) in India. We will include any intervention, policy or programme that directly or indirectly affects awareness or uptake of health insurance. The following outcomes will be eligible to be included: awareness or health insurance literacy, attitude such as readiness to buy h...

Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority of Bangladesh

Dr. Nazrul Islam

Insurance awareness among the people of Bangladesh is at the marginal level due to the absence of initiatives taken by regulatory bodies and the companies of this industry. Insurance companies use ‘agent method’ to reach directly to the potential policy buyers in order to sell their products. This method measurably failed to create awareness among the mass people of Bangladesh. The economic growth of any country is also connected to the development of insurance industry. But the insurance sector failed to contribute to the economy of the country due to its backwardness. Although, the economic growth of Bangladesh is now remarkably higher compared to any other time, the insurance sector is not developed as per expectations. Perhaps, this is due to long absence of insurance campaign by the companies and now people of the country do not feel that insurance is important for their lives. Under this circumstances, the development of this sector is inevitable in order to cope with the economic development of the country and to create savings among the people.

Sustainability

Financial illiteracy and underinsurance have been revealed to be critical issues in the financial sustainability and well-being of families. However, studies show that financial literacy does not necessarily translate to insurance literacy, and more specialized education can improve insurance literacy. Little is known about the impact of insurance illiteracy on the inclination to seek and retain insurance. Considering this gap, our study aimed to investigate the direct and indirect effect of consumers' insurance literacy on purchasing decisions of personal insurance. The study sample consists of middle-class consumers in Sri Lanka. A total of 300 valid questionnaires were collected and analyzed using a variance-based structural equation modeling. The results revealed that insurance literacy directly, and through its mediators of trust, perceived benefits, and favorable attitudes towards insurance, impacts the behavioral intention, significantly and positively. The cognition-based trust affected the purchase intention only through its mediators. Additionally, there is a significant difference between those who are having and not having insurance in terms of insurance literacy, trustfulness, and perceived value of insurance. This study is relatively a pioneer study, and findings will be of great interest to academicians and policymakers to encourage personal insurance as a tool in achieving financial security and well-being

Cognitive Social Science eJournal

Brett Freudenberg

Underinsurance and low financial literacy have been shown to be key issues impacting the effectiveness of personal financial management. Both issues are made more important by the complex financial system, an ever moving array of financial products and services, and the progressive move towards self-reliance in retirement. These factors suggest a greater degree of financial independence and more effective financial decision making is required over the long-term, both of which may be undermined by low financial literacy and underinsurance. Little is known however, about the impact of financial illiteracy on the propensity to seek and retain insurance. Using an interview methodology, we obtained the view of informed and non-informed participants to examine insurance literacy in Australia. We find evidence that insurance literacy of consumers is generally low and exacerbated by factors such as low product knowledge, low trust of providers, low awareness of risk mitigation strategies, a...

International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health

sunita saldanha

Background: Health insurance is an important mechanism in the modern world to save the individuals from the huge health shock, even then very high percentage of people even from educated higher income groups are not covered under any health insurance policy. This study was undertaken to know the knowledge, attitude and practice regarding health insurance.Methods: A community based cross sectional study was conducted among 550 household of Uttar Kannada and Udupi districts. Multistage sampling technique was used.Results: Of the 550 study participants, 384 (69.8%) were BPL card holders. 348 (63.27%) were aware and also subscribed for any type of the health insurance, 115 (20.91%) were aware but did not subscribe while 87 (15.82%) were not aware about it. The main source of information were health workers 185 (39.74%), friends and family 178 (38.44%) and media 99 (21.38%). Of the 348 who had health insurance, only 89 (25.57%) utilized them. Reasons for not availing health insurances ot...

International Business Research

Jon Mcneill

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

African Journal of Business Management

Zaid Ansari

Sunday Ajemunigbohun

Paula-Flavia Biris

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

PAUL M EKPERI

South African Journal of Business Management

Manduth Ramchander

International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies [IJARCSMS] ijarcsms.com

rambabu lavuri

Israel journal of health policy research

Yaniv Hanoch

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

DIANA EUGENIA IONCICA

Labuan e-Journal of Muamalat and Society (LJMS)

Rosle Mohidin

Journal of emerging technologies and innovative research

Josephine Stella A.

Athenia B Sibindi

The Journal of Risk Management

Bonny Bagenda

SUNDAY AJEMUNIGBOHUN

Dr.Dhiraj Jain

The Journal of Strategic Information Systems

Piet Ribbers

Ahmed Salman Syed

Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning

Sarah Osmane

Review of Business Management

David V Gibson

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024