Digital Literacy, Insurtech Adoption and Insurance Inclusion in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to establish whether digital literacy and insurtech adoption influence insurance inclusion in Uganda. Principally, we sought to determine whether insurtech adoption mediates the nexus between digital literacy and insurance inclusion. This study adopted a cross-sectional and quantitative correlational approach. The study’s sample was 391 individuals who had used digital platforms such as mobile phones and computers to access insurance products and services in Uganda. Data were collected using structured survey questionnaires. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLSEM) was employed to test the hypothesised relationships. The results demonstrated that both digital literacy and insurtech adoption significantly and positively influence insurance inclusion. We also found digital literacy to be a significant and positive determinant of insurtech adoption. Markedly, it was found that insurtech adoption mediates the association between digital literacy and insurance inclusion in Uganda. However, this study was conducted in a developing country with an underdeveloped insurance market and with low technological advancement. This may affect the generalisation of the study’s findings. This study’s novelty lies in establishing how digital literacy and insurtech adoption interact to influence insurance inclusion in Uganda. This is the first study to examine the effect of digital literacy and insurtech adoption on insurance inclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".