Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32347811›Full record

ReviewJMIR serious games2020

Investigating Serious Games That Incorporate Medication Use for Patients: Systematic Literature Review.

Olufunmilola Abraham, Sarah LeMay, Sarah Bittner, Tanvee Thakur, Haley Stafford, Randall Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR serious games, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Olufunmilola Abraham *Social and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5621-5567
Sarah LeMaySocial and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7592-9007
Sarah BittnerSocial and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3928-7067
Tanvee ThakurSocial and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4790-187X
Haley StaffordSocial and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8343-9718
Randall BrownDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5445-8119
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR002374 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Bo Liu, Marin Leigh Schweizer · 2017 to 2026
$9.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002374NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe United States spends more than US $100 billion annually on the impact of medication misuse. Serious games are effective and innovative digital tools for educating patients about positive health behaviors. There are limited systematic reviews that examine the prevalence of serious games that incorporate medication use.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify (1) serious games intended to educate patients about medication adherence, education, and safety; (2) types of theoretical frameworks used to develop serious games for medication use; and (3) sampling frames for evaluating serious games on medication use.

methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for literature about medication-based serious games for patients. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for article selection.

resultsUsing PRISMA guidelines, 953 publications and 749 unique titles were identified from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. A total of 16 studies featuring 12 unique serious games were included with components of medication adherence, education, and safety, published from 2003 to 2019. Of the 12 games included, eight serious games were tested in adolescents, three games were tested in young adults, and one game was tested in adults. Most studies (n=11) used small sample sizes to test the usability of serious games. Theoretical frameworks identified in the 12 serious games included information, motivation, and behavior theory; social cognitive theory; precede-proceed model; middle-range theory of chronic illness; adult learning theory; experiential learning theory; and the theory of reasoned action. Existing reviews explore serious games focused on the management of specific disease states, such as HIV, diabetes, and asthma, and on the positive impact of serious game education in each respective disease state. Although other reviews target broad topics such as health care gamification and serious games to educate health care workers, no reviews focus solely on medication use. Serious games were mainly focused on improving adherence, whereas medication safety was not widely explored. Little is known about the efficacy and usability of medication-focused serious games often because of small and nonrepresentative sample sizes, which limit the generalizability of existing studies.

conclusionsLimited studies exist on serious games for health that incorporate medication use. The findings from these studies focus on developing and testing serious games that teach patients about medication use and safety. Many of these studies do not apply a theoretical framework in the design and assessment of these games. In the future, serious game effectiveness could be improved by increasing study sample size and diversity of study participants, so that the results are generalizable to broader populations. Serious games should describe the extent of theoretical framework incorporated into game design and evaluate success by testing the player's retention of learning objectives.

Indexed as

gamesmedication adherencepatient safetysystematic reviewvideo games

Identifiers

PMID32347811
PMCPMC7221639
OpenAlexW3004450950

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.