Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39607995›Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2024

Gamified Digital Mental Health Interventions for Young People: Scoping Review of Ethical Aspects During Development and Implementation.

Wanda Spahl, Valeria Motta, Kate Woodcock, Giovanni Rubeis

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Wanda SpahlDivision Biomedical and Public Health Ethics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7167-8028
Valeria MottaSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-5410
Kate WoodcockThe Centre for Developmental Science, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8884-2020
Giovanni RubeisDivision Biomedical and Public Health Ethics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8265-9436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYoung people are particularly at risk of developing mental health problems, a challenge exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital tools such as apps and chatbots show promise in providing accessible, cost-effective, and less stigmatized ways of strengthening their mental health. However, while these interventions offer benefits, they extend mental health measures beyond traditional therapeutic settings and relationships, which raises ethical concerns due to the absence of established guidelines and regulations. This is particularly notable for technologies incorporating serious gaming elements. In addition, adolescents are in a sensitive and at times vulnerable phase, which shows great potential for the effective use of preventive and sensitizing mental health measures. Considering the lack of an integration into existing mental health structures among many young users, ethical considerations become crucial.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to build a knowledge base on the ethical aspects of developing and implementing gamified digital mental health interventions for young people.

methodsWe conducted a search on research articles and conference papers from 2015 to 2023 in English, German, and Spanish. We identified 1815 studies using a unique combination of keywords in the databases Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. After removing duplicates (741/1816, 40.8%), we included a total of 38 publications in this review following a double screening process.

resultsThis review found that ethically relevant aspects were discussed with regard to (1) research ethics, (2) ethical principles (including privacy, accessibility, empowerment and autonomy, cultural and social sensitivity, and co-design), (3) vulnerable groups, and (4) social implications (including implementation using facilitators in specific social contexts, relationship with other therapeutic options, economic aspects, and social embeddedness of technologies).

conclusionsThis scoping review identified a prevailing limited interpretation of "ethics" as research ethics across the included publications. It also shows a lack of discussion on the social embeddedness of technologies and that co-design is frequently viewed in instrumental terms and vulnerability is mostly addressed pragmatically. Through providing concrete examples of how mental health researchers and game designers thus far have addressed and mitigated ethical challenges in specific interventions, this review illustrates how ethical issues do or do not prompt diverse reflections, mitigation strategies, and actions. It advocates for ethics to be integrated as an ongoing practice throughout all stages of developing and implementing serious game elements in mental health interventions for young people.

Indexed as

digital healtheHealthethicsgamificationmental healthmHealthmobile healthmobile phoneyoung peopleyouth

Identifiers

PMID39607995
PMCPMC11638686

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.