游戏化电子健康促进青少年慢性病自我管理:系统回顾

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Games for Health Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1089/g4h.2023.0111
Maartje D Stutvoet, Lisa Levelt, Micah M Hrehovcsik, Job Van't Veer, Valentijn T Visch, Wichor M Bramer, Manon H J Hillegers, Remco C Veltkamp, Sanne L Nijhof, Fernando Estévez-López
{"title":"游戏化电子健康促进青少年慢性病自我管理:系统回顾","authors":"Maartje D Stutvoet, Lisa Levelt, Micah M Hrehovcsik, Job Van't Veer, Valentijn T Visch, Wichor M Bramer, Manon H J Hillegers, Remco C Veltkamp, Sanne L Nijhof, Fernando Estévez-López","doi":"10.1089/g4h.2023.0111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review primarily aims to provide a summary of the game mechanics implemented in eHealth tools supporting young people's self-management of their chronic diseases. This review secondarily investigates the rationale for implementing game mechanics and the effects of these tools. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, from inception until August 30, 2022. Studies were eligible if focus was on the utilization of gamification in eHealth self-management interventions for young people (age = 10-25 years) with chronic diseases. Primary quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies written in English were included. We identified 34 eHealth tools, of which 20 (59%) were gamified tools and 14 (41%) were serious games. We found that 55 unique game mechanics were implemented. The most commonly used were <i>rewards</i> (50%), <i>score</i> (44%), <i>creative control</i> (41%), and <i>social interaction</i> (32%). In comparison with gamified tools, the number and diversity of game mechanics applied were higher in serious games. For most tools (85%), a general rationale was provided for utilizing gamification, which often was to promote engaging experiences. A rationale for using specific game mechanics was less commonly provided (only for 45% of the game mechanics). The limited availability of experimental research precludes to test the effectiveness of using gamification in eHealth to support self-management in young people with chronic diseases. In this study, we highlight the importance of reporting the rationale for utilizing specific game mechanics in eHealth tools to ensure a proper alignment with evidence-based practice and the need of conducting experimental research. PROSPERO: CRD42021293037.</p>","PeriodicalId":47401,"journal":{"name":"Games for Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"314-331"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gamification in eHealth for Chronic Disease Self-Management in Youth: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Maartje D Stutvoet, Lisa Levelt, Micah M Hrehovcsik, Job Van't Veer, Valentijn T Visch, Wichor M Bramer, Manon H J Hillegers, Remco C Veltkamp, Sanne L Nijhof, Fernando Estévez-López\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/g4h.2023.0111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review primarily aims to provide a summary of the game mechanics implemented in eHealth tools supporting young people's self-management of their chronic diseases. This review secondarily investigates the rationale for implementing game mechanics and the effects of these tools. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, from inception until August 30, 2022. Studies were eligible if focus was on the utilization of gamification in eHealth self-management interventions for young people (age = 10-25 years) with chronic diseases. Primary quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies written in English were included. We identified 34 eHealth tools, of which 20 (59%) were gamified tools and 14 (41%) were serious games. We found that 55 unique game mechanics were implemented. The most commonly used were <i>rewards</i> (50%), <i>score</i> (44%), <i>creative control</i> (41%), and <i>social interaction</i> (32%). In comparison with gamified tools, the number and diversity of game mechanics applied were higher in serious games. For most tools (85%), a general rationale was provided for utilizing gamification, which often was to promote engaging experiences. A rationale for using specific game mechanics was less commonly provided (only for 45% of the game mechanics). The limited availability of experimental research precludes to test the effectiveness of using gamification in eHealth to support self-management in young people with chronic diseases. In this study, we highlight the importance of reporting the rationale for utilizing specific game mechanics in eHealth tools to ensure a proper alignment with evidence-based practice and the need of conducting experimental research. PROSPERO: CRD42021293037.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Games for Health Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"314-331\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Games for Health Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2023.0111\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Games for Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2023.0111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述的主要目的是总结支持年轻人自我管理慢性疾病的电子健康工具中采用的游戏机制。其次,本综述还调查了实施游戏机制的理由以及这些工具的效果。从开始到 2022 年 8 月 30 日,我们在 Embase、Medline、PsycINFO 和 Web of Science 中进行了系统检索。如果研究重点是针对患有慢性疾病的年轻人(年龄=10-25 岁)的电子健康自我管理干预中游戏化的应用,则符合条件。我们纳入了以英语撰写的主要定量、定性和混合方法研究。我们确定了 34 种电子健康工具,其中 20 种(59%)是游戏化工具,14 种(41%)是严肃游戏。我们发现共实施了 55 种独特的游戏机制。最常用的是奖励(50%)、得分(44%)、创意控制(41%)和社交互动(32%)。与游戏化工具相比,严肃游戏中应用的游戏机制的数量和多样性更高。对于大多数工具(85%)来说,使用游戏化的一般理由通常是为了促进引人入胜的体验。而使用特定游戏机制的理由则不太常见(仅占游戏机制的 45%)。由于实验研究有限,因此无法测试在电子健康中使用游戏化支持慢性病青少年自我管理的有效性。在这项研究中,我们强调了报告在电子健康工具中使用特定游戏机制的理由的重要性,以确保与循证实践和开展实验研究的必要性保持一致。prospero:CRD42021293037。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gamification in eHealth for Chronic Disease Self-Management in Youth: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review primarily aims to provide a summary of the game mechanics implemented in eHealth tools supporting young people's self-management of their chronic diseases. This review secondarily investigates the rationale for implementing game mechanics and the effects of these tools. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, from inception until August 30, 2022. Studies were eligible if focus was on the utilization of gamification in eHealth self-management interventions for young people (age = 10-25 years) with chronic diseases. Primary quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies written in English were included. We identified 34 eHealth tools, of which 20 (59%) were gamified tools and 14 (41%) were serious games. We found that 55 unique game mechanics were implemented. The most commonly used were rewards (50%), score (44%), creative control (41%), and social interaction (32%). In comparison with gamified tools, the number and diversity of game mechanics applied were higher in serious games. For most tools (85%), a general rationale was provided for utilizing gamification, which often was to promote engaging experiences. A rationale for using specific game mechanics was less commonly provided (only for 45% of the game mechanics). The limited availability of experimental research precludes to test the effectiveness of using gamification in eHealth to support self-management in young people with chronic diseases. In this study, we highlight the importance of reporting the rationale for utilizing specific game mechanics in eHealth tools to ensure a proper alignment with evidence-based practice and the need of conducting experimental research. PROSPERO: CRD42021293037.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
11.40%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Games for Health Journal is the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the impact of game research, technologies, and applications on human health and well-being. This ground-breaking publication delivers original research that directly impacts this emerging, widely-recognized, and increasingly adopted area of healthcare. Games are rapidly becoming an important tool for improving health behaviors ranging from healthy lifestyle habits and behavior modification, to self-management of illness and chronic conditions to motivating and supporting physical activity. Games are also increasingly used to train healthcare professionals in methods for diagnosis, medical procedures, patient monitoring, as well as for responding to epidemics and natural disasters. Games for Health Journal is a must for anyone interested in the research and design of health games that integrate well-tested, evidence-based behavioral health strategies to help improve health behaviors and to support the delivery of care. Games for Health Journal coverage includes: -Nutrition, weight management, obesity -Disease prevention, self-management, and adherence -Cognitive, mental, emotional, and behavioral health -Games in home-to-clinic telehealth systems
×
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