MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385628821 · doi:10.2196/49382

Parents’ Perceptions of a Serious Game for Educating Families on Prescription Opioid Safety: Qualitative Pilot Study of MedSMARxT: Adventures in PharmaCity

2023· article· en· W4385628821 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olufunmilola Abraham, Grace Nixon, Laura Louise Seitz

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Serious Games · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
Mots-clésAdventurePsychological interventionOpioidMedical prescriptionQualitative researchPerceptionPsychologyVideo gameNursingMedicineMedical educationSociologyMultimediaComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a pervasive, worsening problem that affects the health of people throughout the United States, including adolescents. There are few adolescent-focused interventions designed to educate them about opioid medication safety. The MedSMARxT: Adventures in PharmaCity, is a serious educational video game that teaches parents and their youths about safe opioid practices. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to elucidate parent's perceptions of MedSMARxT: Adventures in PharmaCity and its potential use by parents and their adolescents. METHODS: Parents of adolescents aged 12 to 18 years who live in the United States were recruited from April to October 2021 via Qualtrics research panels, social media, email listserves, and snowball sampling. The study participants played MedSMARxT: Adventures in PharmaCity for 30 minutes and then participated in a 30-minute postgame interview via WebEx (Cisco). Questions were developed and piloted to examine adults' perceptions of the game. Participants were asked three sets of open-ended questions: (1) questions about the game and elements of the game, (2) what they learned from the game, and (3) questions about their experience with games. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were coded using content and thematic analysis by study team members to identify major themes and subthemes from the data. RESULTS: Parent participants (N=67) played MedSMARxT: Adventures in PharmaCity and completed a postgame interview. Analysis extrapolated four primary themes from the data: (1) participant gaming experience, (2) perception of game features, (3) educational purpose of the game, and (4) future use of the game. Most participants (n=56, 84%), had at least some experience with video games. More than half of the participants (n=35, 52%) participants, had positive reactions to the game characters and scenes depicted in MedSMARxT: Adventures in PharmaCity and stated they were realistic for adolescents. Most participants (n=39, 58%), would recommend the game to others. Significant difficulties with gameplay navigation were reported by 38 (57%) participants, as well as a slow game pace. All participants were able to accurately identify the overarching goal of the game: opioid or medication safety. The game reinforced existing knowledge for participants, though many (n=15, 22%), reported a new awareness of the need to store opioid medications in a locked area and the availability of medication disposal drop boxes at pharmacies. Participants stated that they would recommend the game for future use by families and youths in various health care and non-health care settings. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a tailored serious game is a novel, engaging tool to educate adolescents on opioid safety. MedSMARxT: Adventures in PharmaCity can be used as a tool for parents and adolescents to facilitate meaningful dialogue about safe and appropriate opioid use.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,553
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,394
Écart entre enseignants0,352 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Serious GamesMême sujetOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentTravaux en français237 207