Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30497994›Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2018

Creating a Theoretically Grounded, Gamified Health App: Lessons From Developing the Cigbreak Smoking Cessation Mobile Phone Game.

Elizabeth A Edwards, Hope Caton, Jim Lumsden, Carol Rivas, Liz Steed, Yutthana Pirunsarn, Sandra Jumbe, Chris Newby, Aditi Shenvi, Samaresh Mazumdar and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pilot trial of QuitBet: A digital social game that pays you to stop smoking.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Elizabeth A EdwardsCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3277-1446
Hope CatonFaculty of Science, Engineering Computing, Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0249-3780
Jim LumsdenMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6817-6449
Carol RivasCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0316-8090
Liz SteedCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1926-3196
Yutthana PirunsarnFaculty of Science, Engineering Computing, Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0923-026X
Sandra JumbeCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6624-1689
Chris NewbyCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2936-8592
Aditi ShenviCentre for Complexity Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2453-9188
Samaresh MazumdarCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1970-9995
Jim Q SmithDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9224-5317
Darrel GreenhillFaculty of Science, Engineering Computing, Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9697-515X
Chris J GriffithsCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-8694
Robert T WaltonCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7700-1907
Queen Mary University of London · GBKingston University · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/14/156/15Department of Health RP-PG-0609-10181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGaming techniques are increasingly recognized as effective methods for changing behavior and increasing user engagement with mobile phone apps. The rapid uptake of mobile phone games provides an unprecedented opportunity to reach large numbers of people and to influence a wide range of health-related behaviors. However, digital interventions are still nascent in the field of health care, and optimum gamified methods of achieving health behavior change are still being investigated. There is currently a lack of worked methodologies that app developers and health care professionals can follow to facilitate theoretically informed design of gamified health apps.

objectiveThis study aimed to present a series of steps undertaken during the development of Cigbreak, a gamified smoking cessation health app.

methodsA systematic and iterative approach was adopted by (1) forming an expert multidisciplinary design team, (2) defining the problem and establishing user preferences, (3) incorporating the evidence base, (4) integrating gamification, (5) adding behavior change techniques, (6) forming a logic model, and (7) user testing. A total of 10 focus groups were conducted with 73 smokers.

resultsUsers found the app an engaging and motivating way to gain smoking cessation advice and a helpful distraction from smoking; 84% (62/73) of smokers said they would play again and recommend it to a friend.

conclusionsA dedicated gamified app to promote smoking cessation has the potential to modify smoking behavior and to deliver effective smoking cessation advice. Iterative, collaborative development using evidence-based behavior change techniques and gamification may help to make the game engaging and potentially effective. Gamified health apps developed in this way may have the potential to provide effective and low-cost health interventions in a wide range of clinical settings.

Indexed as

behavioral medicineeHealthgames for healthhealth behaviorsmHealthsmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID30497994
PMCPMC6293248
OpenAlexW2882980345

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.