Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33787502›Full record

ReviewJMIR serious games2021

Tabletop Board Game Elements and Gamification Interventions for Health Behavior Change: Realist Review and Proposal of a Game Design Framework.

Daniel S Epstein, Adam Zemski, Joanne Enticott, Christopher Barton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

4 authors.

Daniel S Epstein *Department of General Practice, Monash University, Notting Hill, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2215-7749
Adam Zemski *Department of Mathematics, Moreton Bay College, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4212-3300
Joanne Enticott *Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-5690
Christopher BartonDepartment of General Practice, Monash University, Notting Hill, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9823-7425

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGames, when used as interventional tools, can influence behavior change by incentivizing, reinforcing, educating, providing feedback loops, prompting, persuading, or providing meaning, fun, and community. However, not all game elements will appeal to all consumers equally, and different elements might work for different people and in different contexts.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a realist review of tabletop games targeting behavior change and to propose a framework for designing effective behavior change games.

methodsA realist review was conducted to inform program theory in the development of tabletop games for health behavior change. The context, mechanisms used to change behavior, and outcomes of included studies were reviewed through a realist lens.

resultsThirty-one papers met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Several design methods were identified that enhanced the efficacy of the games to change behavior. These included design by local teams, pilot testing, clearly defined targets of behavior change, conscious attention to all aspects of game design, including game mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics, and the elicitation of emotions. Delivery with other mediums, leveraging behavioral insights, prior training for delivery, and repeated play were also important. Some design elements that were found to reduce efficacy included limited replayability or lack of fun for immersive engagement.

conclusionsGame designers need to consider all aspects of the context and the mechanisms to achieve the desired behavior change outcomes. Careful design thinking should include consideration of the game mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics, emotions, and contexts of the game and the players. People who know the players and the contexts well should design the games or have significant input. Testing in real-world settings is likely to lead to better outcomes. Careful selection and purposeful design of the behavior change mechanisms at play is essential. Fun and enjoyment of the player should be considered, as without engagement, there will be no desired intervention effect.

Indexed as

behavior changebehavior interventionsboard gamesgame designgameshealth gameshealth interventionsserious gamestabletop games

Identifiers

PMID33787502
PMCPMC8047814

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.