ReviewJMIR serious games2025
Use of Gamified Digital Tools in Daily Tasks of Health Care Workers: Scoping Review.
Review in JMIR serious games, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital innovations and health information systems: Lessons learned from implementing ALMANACH in Nigeria.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Analysis of the potential profile and influencing factors of nurses' change fatigue in "Internet+Nursing Services".Frontiers in public 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The quality and effectiveness of health care service delivery are significantly influenced by the engagement and motivation of health care workers. Integrating gamified digital tools (GDTs) into health care workers' workflows presents a promising approach to enhancing them. However, there is currently a lack of evidence supporting the implementation of such interventions. Objective: This scoping review aims to summarize existing evidence on the influence of GDTs on the daily tasks of health care workers. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for scoping reviews. We conducted a comprehensive search across different databases (PubMed, EMBASE, International Journal of Serious Games, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed studies and (OpenAlex, GreyNet, and IEEE Xplore) for gray literature published between January 2010 and January 2024. Eligibility criteria, developed using the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research) framework, included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies involving health care workers using GDTs for daily tasks. Studies in English, French, Spanish, or Italian were eligible. Keywords and medical subject headings related to gamification and health care workers were used. The studies were screened, eligibility was assessed, and data were extracted. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize and interpret the findings. Results: Of 5844 studies, 12 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. These studies exhibited considerable heterogeneity in the application of gamification. Feedback, competition, and dashboard features were the most common gamification elements identified. The implementation of these elements led to enhanced engagement, increased motivation, improved task completion, and promoted healthy competition among staff across various health care settings. Conclusions: Integrating GDTs into health care workers' tasks holds significant potential to enhance engagement and motivation. However, empirical evidence is still lacking. Comparative studies are needed to gain comprehensive insights into the benefits and limitations of gamification in health care.
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.