{"title":"Serious games and gamification in emergency and critical care training: Implications for health professions education.","authors":"Kun Li, Xuejia Pan, Xueling Fang","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2026.2710216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Serious games and gamification are increasingly used in emergency and critical care training, but the literature is heterogeneous and often overlaps conceptually with digital simulation. For medical education, it remains unclear how these interventions are being designed and how deeply their outcomes are being evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidance and registered the protocol on the Open Science Framework. PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EBSCOhost (CINAHL Plus with Full Text and ERIC) were searched from inception to 22 February 2026 without language restrictions. We included empirical studies of serious games, gamification, or game-based learning in emergency, resuscitation, trauma, intensive care, and related high-acuity training contexts. Outcomes were mapped to the highest reported Kirkpatrick level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two unique studies were included from 669 records, with marked growth in recent years. Interventions were grouped into six primary modality families: digital serious games and virtual-patient environments (27/52, 51.92%), gamification-enhanced teaching or platform-based interventions (9/52, 17.31%), escape rooms (6/52, 11.54%), gamified simulation competitions or deliberate-practice formats (4/52, 7.69%), analogue board or card games (3/52, 5.77%), and virtual reality or augmented reality gamified simulations (3/52, 5.77%). Evaluation remained predominantly proximal: the highest reported Kirkpatrick level was Level 2b in 29 studies (55.77%), Level 2a in nine (17.31%), Level 1 in six (11.54%), and Level 3 in eight (15.38%); no study reported Level 4 outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The field is expanding rapidly, but most evaluations remain focused on engagement and short-term learning rather than behavioural transfer or downstream clinical impact. In high-acuity health professions education, game-based approaches appear most useful as adjuncts for pretraining, reinforcement, and distributed practice. Future research should improve conceptual clarity and align educational objectives, mechanisms, game mechanics, and outcome measures more explicitly.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2026.2710216","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Serious games and gamification are increasingly used in emergency and critical care training, but the literature is heterogeneous and often overlaps conceptually with digital simulation. For medical education, it remains unclear how these interventions are being designed and how deeply their outcomes are being evaluated.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidance and registered the protocol on the Open Science Framework. PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EBSCOhost (CINAHL Plus with Full Text and ERIC) were searched from inception to 22 February 2026 without language restrictions. We included empirical studies of serious games, gamification, or game-based learning in emergency, resuscitation, trauma, intensive care, and related high-acuity training contexts. Outcomes were mapped to the highest reported Kirkpatrick level.
Results: Fifty-two unique studies were included from 669 records, with marked growth in recent years. Interventions were grouped into six primary modality families: digital serious games and virtual-patient environments (27/52, 51.92%), gamification-enhanced teaching or platform-based interventions (9/52, 17.31%), escape rooms (6/52, 11.54%), gamified simulation competitions or deliberate-practice formats (4/52, 7.69%), analogue board or card games (3/52, 5.77%), and virtual reality or augmented reality gamified simulations (3/52, 5.77%). Evaluation remained predominantly proximal: the highest reported Kirkpatrick level was Level 2b in 29 studies (55.77%), Level 2a in nine (17.31%), Level 1 in six (11.54%), and Level 3 in eight (15.38%); no study reported Level 4 outcomes.
Conclusions: The field is expanding rapidly, but most evaluations remain focused on engagement and short-term learning rather than behavioural transfer or downstream clinical impact. In high-acuity health professions education, game-based approaches appear most useful as adjuncts for pretraining, reinforcement, and distributed practice. Future research should improve conceptual clarity and align educational objectives, mechanisms, game mechanics, and outcome measures more explicitly.
背景:严肃游戏和游戏化越来越多地用于急诊和重症监护培训,但文献是异构的,并且经常与数字模拟概念重叠。对于医学教育而言,目前尚不清楚这些干预措施是如何设计的,以及对其结果的评估有多深入。方法:我们按照PRISMA-ScR指南进行了范围审查,并在开放科学框架上注册了该方案。PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection和EBSCOhost(含全文和ERIC的CINAHL Plus)从成立到2026年2月22日进行检索,没有语言限制。我们纳入了严肃游戏、游戏化或基于游戏的学习在急诊、复苏、创伤、重症监护和相关高敏锐度培训环境中的实证研究。结果被映射到最高报告的Kirkpatrick水平。结果:从669条记录中纳入了52项独特的研究,近年来有明显的增长。干预措施被分为六个主要形态:数字严肃游戏和虚拟患者环境(27/52,51.92%)、游戏化强化教学或基于平台的干预(9/52,17.31%)、密室逃生(6/52,11.54%)、游戏化模拟比赛或刻意练习形式(4/52,7.69%)、模拟棋盘或纸牌游戏(3/52,5.77%)、虚拟现实或增强现实游戏化模拟(3/52,5.77%)。评价仍以近端为主:29项研究报告的最高Kirkpatrick水平为2b级(55.77%),9项研究为2a级(17.31%),6项研究为1级(11.54%),8项研究为3级(15.38%);没有研究报告4级结果。结论:该领域正在迅速扩大,但大多数评估仍然侧重于参与和短期学习,而不是行为转移或下游临床影响。在高敏锐度的卫生专业教育中,基于游戏的方法作为预训练、强化和分布式实践的辅助手段似乎最有用。未来的研究应提高概念的清晰度,并更明确地调整教育目标、机制、游戏机制和结果测量。
期刊介绍:
Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.