基于游戏的健康干预方法的进步与挑战:范围综述。

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":"基于游戏的健康干预方法的进步与挑战:范围综述。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advancements and challenges in methodological approaches for game-based health interventions: a scoping review.

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.

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
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