Effectiveness of Mobile Health–Based Gamification Interventions for Improving Physical Activity in Individuals With Cardiovascular Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Gamification refers to using game design elements in nongame contexts. Promoting physical activity (PA) through gamification is a novel and promising avenue for improving lifestyles and mitigating the advancement of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, evidence of its effectiveness remains mixed. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of gamification interventions in promoting PA during short-term and follow-up periods in individuals with CVDs and to explore the most effective game design elements. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 7 electronic databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials published in English from January 1, 2010, to February 3, 2024. Eligible studies used mobile health-based gamification interventions to promote PA or reduce sedentary behavior in individuals with CVDs. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened the retrieved records, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with the Sidik-Jonkman method adjusted by the Knapp-Hartung method. Sensitivity analysis and influence analysis examined the robustness of results, while prediction intervals indicated heterogeneity. A meta-regression using a multimodel inference approach explored the most important game design elements. Statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 4.3.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). RESULTS: In total, 6 randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis of 5 studies revealed a small effect of gamification interventions on short-term PA (after sensitivity analysis: Hedges g=0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.45, 95% prediction interval [PI] 0.02-0.62). Meta-analysis of 3 studies found the maintenance effect (measured with follow-up averaging 2.5 months after the end of the intervention) was small (Hedges g=0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.29, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.41). A meta-analysis of 3 studies found participants taking 696.96 more steps per day than the control group (95% CI 327.80 to 1066.12, 95% PI -121.39 to 1515.31). "Feedback" was the most important game design element, followed by "Avatar." CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates that gamification interventions effectively promote PA in individuals with CVD, with effects persisting beyond the intervention period, indicating they are not merely novel effects caused by the game nature of gamification. The 95% PI suggests that implementing gamification interventions in similar populations in the future will lead to actual effects in promoting PA in the vast majority of cases. However, the limited number of included studies underscores the urgent need for more high-quality research in this emerging field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024518795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=518795.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,041 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,076 | 0,021 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».