Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30361194›Full record

ReviewJMIR mental health2018

Gamified Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Psychiatric Disorders: Review.

Melvyn Zhang, Jiangbo Ying, Guo Song, Daniel Ss Fung, Helen Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Challenges When Evaluating Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Use Disorder.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

5 authors.

Melvyn ZhangNational Addiction Management Service, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8385-2345
Jiangbo YingNational Addiction Management Service, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8503-8240
Guo SongNational Addiction Management Service, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6672-404X
Daniel Ss FungDepartment of Developmental Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0718-9363
Helen SmithFamily Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1883-6124

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomatic biases, such as attentional biases and avoidance and interpretative biases, have been purported to be responsible for several psychiatric disorders. Gamification has been considered for cognitive bias modification, mainly to address the core issues of diminishing motivation to train over time, as bias modification intervention tasks tend to be highly repetitive. While a prior review has suggested how gamification strategies could be applied to such tasks, there remains a lack of systematic evaluation of gamified cognitive bias modification interventions in the literature.

objectiveThe objective of this review is to understand the overall effectiveness of a gamified approach for cognitive bias modification and inform future research that seeks to integrate gamification technologies into existing conventional bias modification interventions.

methodsTo identify the relevant articles for our review, the following search terminologies were used: ("cognitive bias" OR "attention bias" OR "interpret* bias" OR "approach bias" OR "avoidance bias") AND ("training" OR "modification" OR "practice" OR "therapy") AND ("gamification" OR "game elements" OR "game" OR "gaming" OR "game mechanics"). PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were searched systematically for articles published after 2000. Articles were included if they described a gamified cognitive bias modification task and included participants with underlying psychopathological symptoms. Data were systematically extracted from the identified articles, and a qualitative synthesis was performed.

resultsFour studies evaluated gamified cognitive bias modification interventions. Two studies included participants with anxiety symptoms, one with affective symptoms, and one with alcohol problems. The conventional visual probe task paradigm was used in 3 studies, and the attentional visual search task paradigm was used in the last study. We found gaming elements incorporated to include that of animations, sounds, feedback, and a point-scoring system for response time and difficulty. Of the 4 identified studies, only 2 reported their gamified interventions to be effective.

conclusionsOur review is the first to systematically synthesize the evidence for gamified cognitive bias modification interventions. The results arising from our review should be considered in the future design and conceptualization of gamified cognitive bias modification interventions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/10154.

Indexed as

attention biascognitive biasgamificationpsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID30361194
PMCPMC6229516

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.