Introductory “how-to” training encourages uptake and sustained use of digital payments. Providing users with simple hands-on experience and guidance on how to sign up builds confidence in the digital payment platform, enabling uptake and use.

Digital payments should be simple, secure, and easy to use. Users are more likely to take up and use digital payments that are interoperable, secure, and safe. Users are more efficient and require less assistance with digital payment platforms that rely on clear icons and graphics, or other systems that are not text based.

The convenience and accessibility of digital payments attracts users. Users prefer digital payments because they can reduce the time and effort needed for transactions.

Education drives uptake but not necessarily use. Several studies indicate that better literacy and education levels positively influence the likelihood of taking up digital payments by increasing people’s ability to understand the platform or absorb new knowledge. However, a survey of 200 respondents from urban Uganda shows that literacy levels have no impact on the range of functions mobile money is used for such as P2P transfers, airtime top up, or other business payments.

Most evidence suggests that peer networks and social influence positively influence uptake. Several studies highlight the importance of family and friends’ perceptions and use of digital payments in driving uptake and use. Use among peer networks builds confidence in digital payments, and friends and family can provide informal training or help with navigating new digital payment technologies. However, a study in Ghana highlights that social influence may not be crucial to sustained use.

Younger individuals are more likely to take up digital payments, but older individuals who take up digital payments are more likely to use them and make higher value transfers. Several studies show that younger people—who are already familiar with digital tools and require less effort to learn payments platforms—are more likely than older people to take up digital payments. However, one study demonstrates that, while older individuals take up digital payments at lower rates than do younger people, they use them more frequently and transfer larger amounts—typically for domestic remittances.

The effect of income is mixed and likely mitigated by other influencing variables. One study demonstrates that level of income has no impact on the uptake and use of digital payments, while others find that higher income correlates with higher uptake and use. Another random survey of 700 rural households in Ghana finds the contrary: an increase in household income decreases the use of mobile money because providers target middle-low-income groups, and there is a cap on the amount of money users can access and dispense.

Users are price-sensitive, as the value proposition of insurance is sometimes unclear; insurance products that are affordable, subsidized, and tailored to user needs are more likely to sell. There is greater willingness to pay when premiums are cheaper, within income thresholds, or subsidies are provided. Users often carefully evaluate if insurance fairly reflects emergency levels and frequency of natural disasters.

Employment is positively linked to insurance uptake and use. Those with paid work or employed in the formal sector are more likely to take up and use insurance. Their stable income allows them to pay premiums.

Those with higher income and socioeconomic status are more likely to have insurance and fully utilize its benefits. They submit more claims and receive more benefits than do insured people with lower incomes and socioeconomic status.

Being married positively influences the uptake of insurance. Most evidence suggest that the positive association between marriage and insurance is due to couples striving to protect each other and offer physical and emotional support. This is especially significant for women. However, one study claims the effect is insignificant.

Urban residents take up more insurance, and claim more benefits—an effect potentially driven by other demographic factors. Despite having access to the same insurance products, individuals in urban areas are more likely to take up insurance, submit claims, and receive benefits than those in rural areas. This disparity likely stems from the complexity of insurance mechanisms. Insurance terms and conditions can be challenging to understand and premiums difficult to afford, particularly for those with lower education and income levels.

Generally, educated individuals are more likely than people with little or no education to have and use insurance. Most studies demonstrate that higher levels of education are linked to greater uptake of insurance because of greater awareness of insurance products, as well as associations between education levels and other demographic factors, such as economic status and income. However, five studies demonstrate that education has a mixed effect. In some cases, educated farmers diversify their occupation as a long-term risk management strategy instead of insurance uptake.

There is no clear consensus on the effect of age or gender on the uptake and use of insurance. Across most user groups, age has a mixed effect. Some studies show that the elderly have the highest rates of uninsurance; however, others demonstrate that older individuals are more willing to pay and are more likely to be covered and retain coverage. One study shows no effect. Similarly, the effect of gender is mixed. Some studies show that men are more likely than women to purchase insurance and submit health insurance claims, while others show that women are more likely to enroll or claim benefits, and one shows no disparity. The effect of gender could be influenced by social networks or by local norms relating to, for example, education or employment of women.

The association between insurance and wealth is mixed; wealth might increase the ability to afford insurance, but it can also enable self-insurance. Wealth is distinct from income, as it takes into account assets such as landholdings for farmers. Some studies indicate that wealth positively influences insurance uptake and use, while others show mixed effects, as higher levels of wealth enable self-insurance. For example, income diversification can reduce the need for business-related insurance. The possession of substantial assets can also make individuals less likely to insure themseves against health or liability incidents, since they have the resources to cover these potential expenses.

Users with individual accounts that encourage recurring, pre-set contributions save more. Formal savings accounts can be individual instead of joint (for greater ownership) and be set up for recurring, pre-set contributions (e.g., identical weekly payments or 10% of monthly income). These product features typically increase the likelihood of opening up an account and the amount saved. Reminders with savings goals (e.g., your future expense) and financial incentives (e.g., year-end bonus) are particularly effective in encouraging saving compared to early / late deposit reminders or messaging about potential gains / losses.

Subsidies for one-time expenses like account openings, and short-term, high interest rates can boost the number of people who sign up for savings accounts, and amounts saved. Offering high, short-term interest rates (12–20%) increases the use of savings accounts and has lasting positive effects. Individuals who received high rates reported significantly higher income and assets 2.5–3.5 years after the rates expired, with increased entrepreneurship and overall household income. However, this relationship is not causal and could be influenced by several factors in addition to saving account subsidies and interest rates.

Saving groups increase amounts saved; formal bank and mobile accounts increase the likelihood of saving. Group-based interventions lead to higher amounts saved due to a collective sense of ownership, social pressure and accountability, and lower interest rates when individuals use the group to access credit. Generally, most studies also show how access to formal bank or mobile accounts increases the likelihood of saving.

Training in practical aspects of savings, such as using new digital saving products, has a more positive effect on savings than imparting financial knowledge alone. “How-to” training on savings products (e.g., mobile money savings account) is positively associated with uptake and use. However, research on the effect of financial knowledge and capability training appears to be mixed. Financial training mainly shows a positive effect on savings only when combined with other “how-to” trainings.

Educated individuals are more likely to save. Higher levels of education are positively associated with an increased likelihood of saving. Some studies demonstrate that people with more education are more likely than people with less education to understand savings-related information interventions (e.g., brochures, posters about saving accounts). This highlights the need for saving interventions to be better tailored to those with lower levels of education. However, other factors such as income and wealth also likely influence the relationship between education and savings.

Higher income does not always translate to more savings; more income can be used to pay off liabilities. Across all user groups, the impact of income on the uptake and use of savings is mixed. Higher income can at times decrease amounts saved because money is used to pay off other liabilities. The impact also differs depending on the saving intervention, with higher income linked to higher uptake of mobile savings, but decreased uptake of subsidized savings interventions.