ReviewJMIR serious games2026
Research Design Processes in Serious Games for Adolescent Mental Health: Systematic Review.
Review in JMIR serious games, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Serious games are increasingly recognized as effective tools in adolescent mental health interventions, providing engaging platforms for emotional regulation, skill development, and behavioral change. However, the ways in which core theoretical concepts such as transfer, boundary crossing, and models of reality are incorporated into serious game designs are not consistently described in the literature. Clarifying how these concepts are addressed is important for understanding how game-based learning may connect to real-world health care practice. Objective: This systematic review aims to examine how serious games for adolescent health care are designed to support learning and facilitate outcomes. Specifically, it examines how the design incorporates constructs of transfer, boundary crossing, and models of reality, and how these elements are represented across published studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic search across 5 databases (PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) covering publications up to 2023. Studies were included if they involved serious games targeting adolescents with behavioral or developmental health concerns. Titles and abstracts were screened independently by 2 reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third party. A qualitative analytical framework was applied to identify elements of design, with a particular focus on transfer, boundary crossing, and models of reality. Results: Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Figural transfer was identified in 24 studies, while literal transfer was identified in 10 studies. Among boundary-crossing mechanisms, reflection occurred most frequently (22 studies), whereas transformation was observed in 3 studies. Causal and procedural models of reality were most commonly identified as primary model types, whereas relational and structural models were more often reported as secondary. Explicit design rationales were infrequently reported across studies. Conclusions: This review demonstrates that serious games for adolescent mental health most frequently emphasize reflective and representational forms of learning. Across the reviewed studies, theoretical constructs related to transfer, boundary crossing, and models of reality were often implicitly embedded rather than explicitly articulated. The proposed analytical framework offers a structured approach for analyzing these design characteristics and may support designers, researchers, and health care professionals in more explicitly aligning design choices with intended learning mechanisms and real-world applications.
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.