PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München

Status quo bias and health behavior: Findings from a cross-sectional study.

Eur. J. Public Health 29, 992-997 (2019)
Publ. Version/Full Text Postprint Research data DOI
Open Access Green
BACKGROUND: Status quo bias (SQB) has often been referred to as an important tool for improving public health. However, very few studies were able to link SQB with health behavior. METHODS: Analysis were based on data from the population-based KORA S4 study (1999-2001, n = 2309). We operationalized SQB through two questions. The first asked whether participants switched their health insurance for financial benefits since this was enabled in 1996. Those who did were assigned a 'very low SQB' (n = 213). Participants who did not switch were asked a second hypothetical question regarding switching costs. We assigned 'low SQB' to those who indicated low switching costs (n = 1035), 'high SQB' to those who indicated high switching costs (n = 588), and 'very high SQB' to those who indicated infinite switching costs (n = 473). We tested the association between SQB and physical activity, diet, smoking, alcohol consumption, the sum of health behaviors, and body mass index (BMI) using logistic, Poisson and ordinary least square regression models, respectively. Models were adjusted for age, sex, education, income, satisfaction with current health insurance and morbidity. RESULTS: SQB was associated with a higher rate of physical inactivity [OR = 1.22, 95% CI (1.11; 1.35)], a higher sum of unhealthy lifestyle factors [IRR = 1.05, 95% CI (1.01; 1.10)] and a higher BMI [β = 0.30, 95% CI (0.08; 0.51)]. CONCLUSION: A high SQB was associated with unfavorable health behavior and higher BMI. Targeting SQB might be a promising strategy for promoting healthy behavior.
Additional Metrics?
Edit extra informations Login
Publication type Article: Journal article
Document type Scientific Article
ISSN (print) / ISBN 1101-1262
e-ISSN 1464-360X
Quellenangaben Volume: 29, Issue: 5, Pages: 992-997 Article Number: , Supplement: ,
Publisher Oxford University Press
Reviewing status Peer reviewed