Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40840871›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2025

A Digital Serious Game (Anticip'action) to Support Advance Care Planning Discussions in the General Population: Usability Study.

Dafne Campioni, Frederic Ehrler, Antoine Berger, Christine Clavien

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Dafne Campioni *Institute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7574-6306
Frederic Ehrler *Department of Medical Information Sciences, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9734-3242
Antoine BergerDepartment of Medical Information Sciences, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8447-0645
Christine ClavienInstitute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0968-144X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of an aging population and increasingly medicalized end-of-life practices, it is crucial to promote early discussions to help patients express their view on what is essential in their life as well as articulate their preferences regarding future medical treatments and end-of-life issues. An interprofessional research team at Geneva University and the Geneva University Hospitals has developed Anticip'action, a card game designed to help initiate and conduct advance care planning and end-of-life discussions. It is available for free in paper format in diverse languages and in a digital version in French.

objectiveThis study aims to assess the ergonomic quality of the digital version of the game with primary users.

methodsOverall, 10 users (women: n=5, 50%; men: n=5, 50%; mean age 41, SD 13.4 years; range 25-65 years; education: upper level; comfortable with smartphones) completed an online usability test. The test began with a rapid desirability test to capture initial impressions of the game's main screen without knowing what it is about. This was followed by a think-aloud procedure, including 26 tasks to perform all steps of the game. Posttest questionnaires were administered to collect participants' subjective perceptions of the usability (System Usability Scale), attractiveness (AttrakDiff), and relevance as well as overall endorsement of the game (Mobile Application Rating Scale). Open-ended questions were used to further explore usability issues. Usability problems were categorized and evaluated using standard evaluation grids. Content readability was assessed with Scolarius.

resultsThe rapid desirability test revealed an overall good or average impression. In 83.2% (208/250) of the cases, participants successfully completed the think-aloud tasks without assistance. Some of the tasks (4/25, 16%) revealed multiple usability issues requiring assistance. Analysis of the 23 failures and difficulties encountered revealed that 3 (13%) issues were due to suboptimal wording of the task instructions and that there were 9 (39%) major usability problems. All could be addressed through minor modifications. The Scolarius test indicated that the card titles were understandable at an elementary school level, while the explanations on the back of the cards required a high school reading level. Participants rated Anticip'action as good or excellent in usability (79 out of 100 on the System Usability Scale), attractiveness (1.57 on the -3 to +3 AttrakDiff scale), and relevance (4.1 out of 5 on section F of the Mobile Application Rating Scale). Participants provided overall positive qualitative feedback.

conclusionsThe usability testing of the digital French version of Anticip'action produced positive results, with some areas for improvement identified. It can be recommended as a valuable resource for patients, families, and caregivers to prompt reflection, raise awareness, and support advance care planning conversations. Further tests should be conducted on wider population groups, including older patients and individuals less comfortable with digital solutions.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningVideo GamesAdultAgedErgonomicsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesadvance care planningconversation toolend of lifemHealthmobile appsmobile healthmobile phonepalliative careserious gameusability

Identifiers

PMID40840871
PMCPMC12411793

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.