SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2025
Advancements and challenges in methodological approaches for game-based health interventions: a scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advancements and challenges in methodological approaches for game-based health interventions: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Applying game design techniques to create engaging health interventions has become more common, though still met with challenges and criticisms. This scoping literature review evaluates the extent to which recent health-based game intervention studies have improved from past criticisms around the process of game development, theoretical grounding, and implementation in terms of research design. Methods: Following a search of relevant databases and an AI tool (Elicit.org), 26 published articles met our selection criteria of reporting a game-based health intervention task developed by the article's authors. In each article, the reported theoretical grounding, use of game mechanics, and methodologies for developing and implementing game-based interventions were assessed. Our procedure involved coding for psychological or game design theories, game mechanics, and the research methods and design approaches used for intervention development. We reasoned that articles grounded in theory would be more likely to report effective methodologies and support for their design choices. Results: Our findings revealed that authors frequently used quantitative methods to determine intervention impact, explicitly referenced psychological (vs. game design) theory more frequently, and used more than one game mechanic in the interventions. In line with recommendations, the majority of studies used large sample sizes and applied their interventions in real-world settings. Discussion: Despite these improvements, we identified areas of growth: utilizing interdisciplinary teams, user-centered and iterative approaches, and standardizing the reporting of intervention design components. This review is intended to inform the future of applied game design in health contexts.
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.