Effectiveness of Serious Games for Improving Executive Functions Among Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Executive functions are one of the known cognitive abilities that decline with age. They are the high-order cognitive processes that enable an individual to concentrate, plan, and take action. Serious games, which are games developed for specific purposes other than entertainment, could play a positive role in improving executive functions. Several systematic reviews have pooled the evidence about the effectiveness of serious games in improving executive functions; however, they are limited by some weaknesses. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of serious games for improving executive functions among older adults with cognitive impairment. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. To retrieve relevant studies, 8 electronic databases were searched. Further, reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews were screened, and we checked studies that cited our included studies. Two reviewers independently checked the eligibility of the studies, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias, and appraised the quality of the evidence. We used a narrative and statistical approach, as appropriate, to synthesize results of the included studies. RESULTS: Of 548 publications identified, 16 RCTs were eventually included in this review. Of the 16 studies, 14 studies were included in 6 meta-analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that serious games are as effective as no or passive interventions at improving executive functions (P=.29). Surprisingly, conventional exercises were more effective than serious games at improving executive functions (P=.03). Our subgroup analysis showed that both types of serious games (cognitive training games, P=.08; exergames, P=.16) are as effective as conventional exercises at improving executive functions. No difference was found between adaptive serious games and nonadaptive serious games for improving executive functions (P=.59). CONCLUSIONS: Serious games are not superior to no or passive interventions and conventional exercises at improving executive functions among older adults with cognitive impairment. However, our findings remain inconclusive due to the low quality of the evidence, the small sample size in most included studies, and the paucity of studies included in the meta-analyses. Accordingly, until more robust evidence is available, serious games should not be offered by health care providers nor used by patients for improving executive functions among older adults with cognitive impairment. Further reviews are needed to assess the long-term effect of serious games on specific executive functions or other cognitive abilities among people from different age groups with or without cognitive impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021272757; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=272757.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,031 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».