Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38299038›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Protocol for a randomised controlled field experiment on the effect of different gamification designs of physical activity.

Elaine Marie Grech, Marie Briguglio, Emanuel Said

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Elaine Marie GrechUniversity of Malta, Msida MSD2080, Malta.
Marie BriguglioUniversity of Malta, Msida MSD2080, Malta.
Emanuel SaidUniversity of Malta, Msida MSD2080, Malta.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gamification is finding growing application in the field of physical activity, promising engaging and motivating experiences that foster behavioural change. However, existing empirical work has insufficiently scrutinised whether the reported positive outcomes emerge because of gamification and what type of gamification design leads to optimal results. This protocol for a parallel four-arm randomised controlled field experiment was purposely designed to investigate the effect of different gamification designs on motivation, perceived usefulness, and the intended behavioural change in physical activity (increase in step counts). Participants were randomly assigned to either: 1) a competitive gamified group; 2) a cooperative gamified group; 3) a hybrid (competitive-cooperative) gamified group; or 4) a control group. The design of the gamified interventions was guided by gamification design frameworks identified in literature. The data gathered includes: 1) a longitudinal panel dataset of step counts to investigate the causal effect of gamification on physical activity behaviour; and 2) self-reported data to examine the effect of gamification on the users' intrinsic motivation and perceived usefulness of the experience. This protocol outlines the procedure and processes followed during this experiment to facilitate replicability for future studies.

Indexed as

Behaviour changeCompetitionCooperationCoopetitionGamificationMotivationPhysical activityProtocol for a randomised controlled field experiment on the effect of different gamification designs of physical activityPsychological outcomesRandomised controlled field experimentSteps

Identifiers

PMID38299038
PMCPMC10828797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.