ArticleJMIR serious games2021
Physiological Responses and User Feedback on a Gameful Breathing Training App: Within-Subject Experiment.
Article in JMIR serious games, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Respiratory Training in Relieving Postoperative Pain in Patients with Spinal Nerve Root Entrapment Syndrome.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
- Feasibility of the LvL UP digital lifestyle coaching intervention designed to prevent non-communicable diseases and common mental disorders.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Leveraging Influencers to Reach and Engage Vulnerable Individuals With a Digital Health Intervention: Quasi-Experimental Field Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Development of a digital biomarker and intervention for subclinical depression: study protocol for a longitudinal waitlist control study.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Can digital health researchers make a difference during the pandemic? Results of the single-arm, chatbot-led Elena+: Care for COVID-19 interventional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Development of "LvL UP 1.0": a smartphone-based, conversational agent-delivered holistic lifestyle intervention for the prevention of non-communicable diseases and common mental disorders.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Breathing as an Input Modality in a Gameful Breathing Training App (Breeze 2): Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR serious games · 2022Article
- The Impact of a Gameful Breathing Training Visualization on Intrinsic Experiential Value, Perceived Effectiveness, and Engagement Intentions: Between-Subject Online Experiment.JMIR serious games · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSlow-paced breathing training (6 breaths per minute [BPM]) improves physiological and psychological well-being by inducing relaxation characterized by increased heart rate variability (HRV). However, classic breathing training has a limited target group, and retention rates are very low. Although a gameful approach may help overcome these challenges, it is crucial to enable breathing training in a scalable context (eg, smartphone only) and ensure that they remain effective. However, despite the health benefits, no validated mobile gameful breathing training featuring a biofeedback component based on breathing seems to exist.
objectiveThis study aims to describe the design choices and their implementation in a concrete mobile gameful breathing training app. Furthermore, it aims to deliver an initial validation of the efficacy of the resulting app.
methodsPrevious work was used to derive informed design choices, which, in turn, were applied to build the gameful breathing training app Breeze. In a pretest (n=3), design weaknesses in Breeze were identified, and Breeze was adjusted accordingly. The app was then evaluated in a pilot study (n=16). To ascertain that the effectiveness was maintained, recordings of breathing rates and HRV-derived measures (eg, root mean square of the successive differences [RMSSDs]) were collected. We compared 3 stages: baseline, standard breathing training deployed on a smartphone, and Breeze.
resultsOverall, 5 design choices were made: use of cool colors, natural settings, tightly incorporated game elements, game mechanics reflecting physiological measures, and a light narrative and progression model. Breeze was effective, as it resulted in a slow-paced breathing rate of 6 BPM, which, in turn, resulted in significantly increased HRV measures compared with baseline (P<.001 for RMSSD). In general, the app was perceived positively by the participants. However, some criticized the somewhat weaker clarity of the breathing instructions when compared with a standard breathing training app.
conclusionsThe implemented breathing training app Breeze maintained its efficacy despite the use of game elements. Moreover, the app was positively perceived by participants although there was room for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.