提高疫苗接种率的数字游戏化工具:范围审查。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JMIR Serious Games Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.2196/47257
Hina Hakim, S Michelle Driedger, Dominique Gagnon, Julien Chevrier, Geneviève Roch, Eve Dubé, Holly O Witteman
{"title":"提高疫苗接种率的数字游戏化工具:范围审查。","authors":"Hina Hakim, S Michelle Driedger, Dominique Gagnon, Julien Chevrier, Geneviève Roch, Eve Dubé, Holly O Witteman","doi":"10.2196/47257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.</p>","PeriodicalId":14795,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Serious Games","volume":"12 ","pages":"e47257"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10906656/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Gamification Tools to Enhance Vaccine Uptake: Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Hina Hakim, S Michelle Driedger, Dominique Gagnon, Julien Chevrier, Geneviève Roch, Eve Dubé, Holly O Witteman\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/47257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Serious Games\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"e47257\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10906656/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Serious Games\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/47257\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Serious Games","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/47257","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:游戏化已成功用于促进各种理想的健康行为。以往的研究利用游戏化来实现理想的健康行为或促进他们学习健康知识:在这篇范围综述中,我们旨在描述为鼓励疫苗接种而在不同人群中实施或评估的数字游戏化工具,以及所发现的工具的效果报告:我们检索了 Medline、Embase、CINAHL、Web of Science Core Collection、Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Academic Search Premier、PsycInfo、Global Health 和 ERIC,以查找描述数字游戏化工具的同行评审论文(无论是否进行了评估)。我们还通过谷歌进行了网络搜索,以查找缺乏相关出版物的数字游戏化工具。我们咨询了游戏化和健康行为领域的 12 位专家,以确定我们可能遗漏的论文或工具。我们提取了有关工具的目标人群、干预措施本身(例如,数字游戏化工具平台的类型、疾病/疫苗的类型、研究的类型和设计)以及所评估工具的任何效果的数据,并对数据进行了叙述性综合:在1402条记录中,我们收录了28篇(2%)经同行评审的论文和10个缺乏相关出版物的数字游戏化工具。专家们补充了 1 款符合纳入标准的数字游戏化工具。因此,我们的最终数据集包括 28 篇同行评议论文和 11 款数字游戏化工具。在 28 篇同行评议论文中,7 篇(25%)阐述了工具的开发,16 篇(57%)介绍了评估,2 篇(7%)同时报告了工具的开发和评估。28 篇同行评审论文报告了 25 种不同的工具。在这 25 种数字游戏化工具中,11 种(44%)是基于网络的工具,8 种(32%)是移动应用程序(本地移动或移动网络),6 种(24%)是虚拟现实工具。总体而言,接受评估的工具显示了知识和接种疫苗意愿的增加,对态度的影响参差不齐,而对信念的影响则是积极的。我们没有观察到某一类型的数字游戏化工具(基于网络、手机、虚拟现实)比其他工具有明显的优势。不过,有几项研究是随机对照试验,出版偏差可能导致这些积极效果更有可能出现在同行评审文献中:数字游戏化工具似乎有潜力通过培养积极的信念、增加疫苗相关知识和意向来提高疫苗接种率。鼓励对数字游戏化工具的不同特征或不同类型进行比较研究,可以确定在不同人群和环境中产生更积极效果的工具特征或类型,从而推动该领域的发展。该领域的进一步工作应力求为实施游戏化以促进疫苗接受提供信息,并促进有效的健康传播,从而产生有意义的健康和社会影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Digital Gamification Tools to Enhance Vaccine Uptake: Scoping Review.

Background: Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health.

Objective: In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively.

Results: Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature.

Conclusions: Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Serious Games
JMIR Serious Games Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Serious Games (JSG, ISSN 2291-9279) is a sister journal of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), one of the most cited journals in health informatics (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175). JSG has a projected impact factor (2016) of 3.32. JSG is a multidisciplinary journal devoted to computer/web/mobile applications that incorporate elements of gaming to solve serious problems such as health education/promotion, teaching and education, or social change.The journal also considers commentary and research in the fields of video games violence and video games addiction.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Virtual Reality Technology on Attention and Motor Ability in Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Using Digital Art and Attachment Priming in a Web-Based Serious Game to Reduce Pain and Social Disconnection in Individuals With Chronic Pain and Loneliness: Randomized Controlled Trial. Serious Game for the Nursing Assessment of Home-Dwelling Older Adults: Development and Validation Study. A Mixed Reality-based Tele-Supervised Ultrasound Education Platform on 5G network compared to Direct Supervision: Prospective Randomized Pilot Trial. Comparison of Occupational Performance in Immersive Virtual and Real Environments Among Patients With Stroke: Observational Randomized Crossover Pilot Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1