ArticleJMIR serious games2024
Impact of Facilitation on Cognitive Flow in a Novel Diabetes Management Rehearsal Game for Health Professions Education: Mixed Methods, Open-Label, Superiority Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in JMIR serious games, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05637749 (Mechanisms of Flow Regulation in a Novel Digital Serious Game for Rehearsing Complex Medical Subjects), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Mechanisms of Flow Regulation in a Novel Digital Serious Game for Rehearsing Complex Medical Subjects
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Active learning in diabetes education for health professions students: a narrative synthesis of effectiveness and implementation considerations.Medical education online · 2026Review
- Consolidating Interprofessional Learning Using an Escape Room in a Briefcase Activity in a Rural Setting.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThough the prevalence of diabetes is set to increase, most serious game solutions typically target patient self-management and education. Few games target health care professions education, and even fewer consider the factors that may increase their efficacies. The impact of facilitation, a prominent feature of health professions education, is examined in the context of a rehearsal-based diabetes management serious game.
objectiveIn this mixed methods, open-label, superiority randomized controlled trial, we compare student performance, attitudes, and perceptions of a rehearsal-based diabetes management game for health care professionals.
methodsStudent participants were randomized into 2 groups to play a diabetes management game. The control group played the game alone, and the intervention group played the same game alongside a facilitator tasked to moderate overall challenge levels and address queries. Both groups were administered the Flow Short Scale, a 13-item measure rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 7 ("very much") immediately after the game. Students were then invited to voluntary focus group discussions to elicit their attitudes and perceptions of the game. Findings were subject to between-group comparisons and inductive thematic analysis respectively.
resultsA total of 48 (26 control, 22 intervention) clinical-year undergraduates from the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine in Singapore participated in this study, with 18 continuing to the focus group discussions. Flow Short Scale results indicated the superiority of the intervention group for overall flow (t
conclusionsWhile serious games are efficacious means of rehearsing previously learned knowledge, facilitation allows for their efficiency to be greatly increased. Such increases are likely crucial in the coming years with the increased digitization of health care professions education and the prevalence of diabetes.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05637749; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05637749.
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.