MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793583855 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019871

Effectiveness of serious games and impact of design elements on engagement and educational outcomes in healthcare professionals and students: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2018· review· en· W2793583855 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc‐André Maheu‐Cadotte, Sylvie Cossette, Véronique Dubé, Guillaume Fontaine, Tanya Mailhot, Patrick Lavoie, Alexis Cournoyer, Fabio Balli, Gabrielle Mathieu-Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalFondation Institut de Cardiologie de MontréalUniversité de MontréalRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du Québec
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicineData extractionGrading (engineering)Medical educationHealth careSystematic reviewProtocol (science)MEDLINEMeta-analysisGrey literatureAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Serious games (SGs) are interactive and entertaining digital software with an educational purpose. They engage the learner by proposing challenges and through various design elements (DEs; eg, points, difficulty adaptation, story). Recent reviews suggest the effectiveness of SGs in healthcare professionals' and students' education is mixed. This could be explained by the variability in their DEs, which has been shown to be highly variable across studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of SGs and the impact of DEs on engagement and educational outcomes of healthcare professionals and students. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted using a combination of medical subject headings terms and keywords in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsycInFO, PubMed and Web of Science. Studies assessing SGs on engagement and educational outcomes will be included. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening as well as the data extraction process. The risk of bias of included studies will also be assessed by two reviewers using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria. Data regarding DEs in SGs will first be synthesised qualitatively. A meta-analysis will then be performed, if the data allow it. Finally, the quality of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of SGs on each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this systematic review only uses already collected data, no Institutional Review Board approval is required. Its results will be submitted in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of 2018. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017077424.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.040
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.319
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207