Department of Economics and Management, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Sep 10;23(9):e30390. doi: 10.2196/30390.
In health care, the use of game-based interventions to increase motivation, engagement, and overall sustainability of health behaviors is steadily becoming more common. The most prevalent types of game-based interventions in health care research are gamification and serious games. Various researchers have discussed substantial conceptual differences between these 2 concepts, supported by empirical studies showing differences in the effects on specific health behaviors. However, researchers also frequently report cases in which terms related to these 2 concepts are used ambiguously or even interchangeably. It remains unclear to what extent existing health care research explicitly distinguishes between gamification and serious games and whether it draws on existing conceptual considerations to do so.
This study aims to address this lack of knowledge by capturing the current state of conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care research. Furthermore, we aim to provide tools for researchers to disambiguate the reporting of game-based interventions.
We used a 2-step research approach. First, we conducted a systematic literature review of 206 studies, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals, containing terms related to gamification, serious games, or both. We analyzed their conceptualizations of gamification and serious games, as well as the distinctions between the two concepts. Second, based on the literature review findings, we developed a set of guidelines for researchers reporting on game-based interventions and evaluated them with a group of 9 experts from the field.
Our results show that less than half of the concept mentions are accompanied by an explicit definition. To distinguish between the 2 concepts, we identified four common approaches: implicit distinction, synonymous use of terms, serious games as a type of gamified system, and distinction based on the full game dimension. Our Game-Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING) consist of 25 items grouped into four topics: conceptual focus, contribution, mindfulness about related concepts, and individual concept definitions.
Conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care literature are strongly heterogeneous, leading to conceptual ambiguity. Following the GAMING can support authors in rigorous reporting on study results of game-based interventions.
在医疗保健领域,使用基于游戏的干预措施来提高动机、参与度和整体健康行为的可持续性正变得越来越普遍。医疗保健研究中最常见的基于游戏的干预类型是游戏化和严肃游戏。各种研究人员讨论了这两个概念之间的实质性概念差异,并通过显示对特定健康行为影响差异的实证研究提供了支持。然而,研究人员也经常报告与这两个概念相关的术语使用不明确甚至互换的情况。目前尚不清楚现有医疗保健研究在多大程度上明确区分游戏化和严肃游戏,以及是否利用现有概念考虑因素来区分。
本研究旨在通过捕捉医疗保健研究中游戏化和严肃游戏的概念现状来解决这一知识空白。此外,我们旨在为研究人员提供工具来消除基于游戏的干预措施报告中的歧义。
我们使用了两步研究方法。首先,我们对发表在《医学互联网研究杂志》及其姊妹期刊上的 206 篇研究进行了系统的文献回顾,其中包含与游戏化、严肃游戏或两者相关的术语。我们分析了它们对游戏化和严肃游戏的概念化,以及这两个概念之间的区别。其次,根据文献综述的结果,我们为报告基于游戏的干预措施的研究人员制定了一套准则,并由来自该领域的 9 名专家对其进行了评估。
我们的研究结果表明,不到一半的概念提及都附有明确的定义。为了区分这两个概念,我们确定了四种常见的方法:隐含区别、术语的同义使用、严肃游戏作为游戏化系统的一种类型以及基于完整游戏维度的区别。我们的基于游戏的干预报告准则(GAMING)由 25 个项目组成,分为四个主题:概念重点、贡献、对相关概念的关注以及单个概念定义。
医疗保健文献中游戏化和严肃游戏的概念化存在很大的异质性,导致概念上的模糊性。遵循 GAMING 可以支持作者对基于游戏的干预措施的研究结果进行严格报告。