Advancements and challenges in methodological approaches for game-based health interventions: a scoping review.

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2025-03-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1561422
Shaina Glass, Alexia Galati
{"title":"Advancements and challenges in methodological approaches for game-based health interventions: a scoping review.","authors":"Shaina Glass, Alexia Galati","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2025.1561422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Applying game design techniques to create engaging health interventions has become more common, though still met with challenges and criticisms. This scoping literature review evaluates the extent to which recent health-based game intervention studies have improved from past criticisms around the process of game development, theoretical grounding, and implementation in terms of research design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following a search of relevant databases and an AI tool (Elicit.org), 26 published articles met our selection criteria of reporting a game-based health intervention task developed by the article's authors. In each article, the reported theoretical grounding, use of game mechanics, and methodologies for developing and implementing game-based interventions were assessed. Our procedure involved coding for psychological or game design theories, game mechanics, and the research methods and design approaches used for intervention development. We reasoned that articles grounded in theory would be more likely to report effective methodologies and support for their design choices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings revealed that authors frequently used quantitative methods to determine intervention impact, explicitly referenced psychological (vs. game design) theory more frequently, and used more than one game mechanic in the interventions. In line with recommendations, the majority of studies used large sample sizes and applied their interventions in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite these improvements, we identified areas of growth: utilizing interdisciplinary teams, user-centered and iterative approaches, and standardizing the reporting of intervention design components. This review is intended to inform the future of applied game design in health contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"7 ","pages":"1561422"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11973360/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1561422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Applying game design techniques to create engaging health interventions has become more common, though still met with challenges and criticisms. This scoping literature review evaluates the extent to which recent health-based game intervention studies have improved from past criticisms around the process of game development, theoretical grounding, and implementation in terms of research design.

Methods: Following a search of relevant databases and an AI tool (Elicit.org), 26 published articles met our selection criteria of reporting a game-based health intervention task developed by the article's authors. In each article, the reported theoretical grounding, use of game mechanics, and methodologies for developing and implementing game-based interventions were assessed. Our procedure involved coding for psychological or game design theories, game mechanics, and the research methods and design approaches used for intervention development. We reasoned that articles grounded in theory would be more likely to report effective methodologies and support for their design choices.

Results: Our findings revealed that authors frequently used quantitative methods to determine intervention impact, explicitly referenced psychological (vs. game design) theory more frequently, and used more than one game mechanic in the interventions. In line with recommendations, the majority of studies used large sample sizes and applied their interventions in real-world settings.

Discussion: Despite these improvements, we identified areas of growth: utilizing interdisciplinary teams, user-centered and iterative approaches, and standardizing the reporting of intervention design components. This review is intended to inform the future of applied game design in health contexts.

基于游戏的健康干预方法的进步与挑战:范围综述。
应用游戏设计技术创造引人入胜的健康干预措施已经变得越来越普遍,尽管仍然面临着挑战和批评。这篇文献综述评估了最近基于健康的游戏干预研究在多大程度上改进了过去对游戏开发过程、理论基础和研究设计实施的批评。方法:通过对相关数据库和人工智能工具(Elicit.org)的搜索,26篇已发表的文章符合我们的选择标准,即报告由文章作者开发的基于游戏的健康干预任务。在每篇文章中,报告的理论基础,游戏机制的使用,以及开发和实施基于游戏的干预的方法都进行了评估。我们的程序包括对心理学或游戏设计理论、游戏机制以及用于干预开发的研究方法和设计方法进行编码。我们推断,基于理论的文章将更有可能报道有效的方法和对其设计选择的支持。结果:我们的研究结果显示,作者经常使用定量方法来确定干预的影响,更频繁地明确引用心理学(相对于游戏设计)理论,并在干预中使用不止一种游戏机制。与建议一致,大多数研究使用了大样本量,并将其干预措施应用于现实环境。讨论:尽管有这些改进,我们确定了增长的领域:利用跨学科团队,以用户为中心和迭代方法,以及标准化干预设计组件的报告。本综述旨在为健康情境下应用游戏设计的未来提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信