Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28362821›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Does gamification increase engagement with online programs? A systematic review.

Jemma Looyestyn, Jocelyn Kernot, Kobie Boshoff, Jillian Ryan, Sarah Edney, Carol Maher

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Determining the feasibility of self-administered relaxing acupressure for fatigue among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. The Put It Out Project (POP) Facebook Intervention for Young Sexual and Gender Minority Smokers: Outcomes of a Pilot, Randomized, Controlled Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. FME-24: A film, music, and emotion dataset.International journal of multimedia information retrieval · 2026
    Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jemma LooyestynSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jocelyn KernotSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Kobie BoshoffSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jillian RyanAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), School of Health Sciences & Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sarah EdneyAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), School of Health Sciences & Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Carol MaherAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), School of Health Sciences & Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEngagement in online programs is difficult to maintain. Gamification is the recent trend that offers to increase engagement through the inclusion of game-like features like points and badges, in non-game contexts. This review will answer the following question, 'Are gamification strategies effective in increasing engagement in online programs?'

methodEight databases (Web of Science, PsycINFO, Medline, INSPEC, ERIC, Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete and ACM Digital Library) were searched from 2010 to the 28th of October 2015 using a comprehensive search strategy. Eligibility criteria was based on the PICOS format, where "population" included adults, "intervention" involved an online program or smart phone application that included at least one gamification feature. "Comparator" was a control group, "outcomes" included engagement and "downstream" outcomes which occurred as a result of engagement; and "study design" included experimental studies from peer-reviewed sources. Effect sizes (Cohens d and 95% confidence intervals) were also calculated.

results1017 studies were identified from database searches following the removal of duplicates, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The studies involved a total of 10,499 participants, and were commonly undertaken in tertiary education contexts. Engagement metrics included time spent (n = 5), volume of contributions (n = 11) and occasions visited to the software (n = 4); as well as downstream behaviours such as performance (n = 4) and healthy behaviours (n = 1). Effect sizes typically ranged from medium to large in direct engagement and downstream behaviours, with 12 out of 15 studies finding positive significant effects in favour of gamification.

conclusionGamification is effective in increasing engagement in online programs. Key recommendations for future research into gamification are provided. In particular, rigorous study designs are required to fully examine gamification's effects and determine how to best achieve sustained engagement.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSoftwareYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28362821
PMCPMC5376078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.