Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35105418›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2022

Therapeutic use of serious games in mental health: scoping review.

Alice Dewhirst, Richard Laugharne, Rohit Shankar

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.1field-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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Innovations to improve outcomes and uptake of psychotherapies for mental disorders: a state-of-the-art review.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alice DewhirstUniversity of Exeter Medical School, UK.
Richard LaugharneCornwall Intellectual Disability Equitable Research, University of Plymouth Medical School, UK; and Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9916-343X
Rohit ShankarCornwall Intellectual Disability Equitable Research, University of Plymouth Medical School, UK; and Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1183-6933
Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been an increase in the development and application of serious games to support management of mental ill health, but their full impact is unclear.

aimsEvaluation of the current evidence of acceptability and effectiveness of serious games in improving mental health disorders.

methodA PRISMA-guided scoping review was conducted, using a predefined criteria and a relevant word combination on three databases: EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO. Each included study was examined for game format, study type, number of participants, basic demographics, disorder targeted, recruitment, setting, control conditions, duration and follow-up, study attrition, primary outcomes and their results. Each study was given a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating for quality.

resultsFourteen out of 513 studies met the inclusion criteria. The serious games focused on symptoms of anxiety (n = 4), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (n = 3), depression (n = 2), schizophrenia (n = 2), alcohol use disorder (n = 2) and bipolar disorder (n = 1). There were multiple significant outcomes favouring serious games across conditions covered in the review. Study quality varied, with studies rated high (n = 3), moderate (n = 6), low (n = 3) and very low (n = 2).

conclusionsThe available evidence suggests that serious games could be an effective format for an intervention to reduce mental health symptoms and improve outcomes of individuals. Better designed studies would further develop confidence in this area. This is a potential vehicle of change to deliver some of the much-needed psychiatric support to both economically developed and developing regions in a resource-utilitarian manner. Partnerships between the gaming industry, researchers and health services may benefit patients.

Indexed as

anxietybipolar disorderdepressionschizophreniaSerious games

Identifiers

PMID35105418
PMCPMC8867878
OpenAlexW4210438068

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.