MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196826136 · doi:10.2196/30325

Gamification and Game-Based Strategies for Dermatology Education: Narrative Review

2021· review· en· W3196826136 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachMedical educationNarrativePsychologyDiversity (politics)MedicinePatient educationFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Game-based approaches, or gamification, are popular learning strategies in medical education for health care providers and patients alike. Gamification has taken the form of serious educational games and simulations to enable learners to rehearse skills and knowledge in a safe environment. Dermatology learners in particular may benefit from gamification methods, given the visual and procedural nature of the field. OBJECTIVE: This narrative review surveys current applications of gamification within general medical training, in the education of dermatology students, and in dermatology patient outreach. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate to access and review relevant medical education- and dermatology-related gamification studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Two independent researchers with education and experience in dermatology screened publications to select studies featuring a diversity of gamification approaches and study subjects for in-depth examination. RESULTS: A total of 6 general medical education-related and 7 dermatology-specific gamification studies were selected. Gamification generally increased motivation and engagement, improved reinforcement of learning objectives, and contributed to more enjoyable and positive educational experiences compared to traditional modes of instruction. Enhancing examination scores, building confidence, and developing stronger team dynamics were additional benefits for medical trainees. Despite the abundance of gamification studies in general medical education, comparatively few instances were specific to dermatology learning, although large organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology have begun to implement these strategies nationally. Gamification may also a provide promising alternative means of diversifying patient education and outreach methods, especially for self-identification of malignant melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Serious games and simulations in general medical education have successfully increased learner motivation, enjoyment, and performance. In limited preliminary studies, gamified approaches to dermatology-specific medical education enhanced diagnostic accuracy and interest in the field. Game-based interventions in patient-focused educational pilot studies surrounding melanoma detection demonstrated similar efficacy and knowledge benefits. However, small study participant numbers and large variability in outcome measures may indicate decreased generalizability of findings regarding the current impact of gamification approaches, and further investigation in this area is warranted. Additionally, some relevant studies may have been omitted by the simplified literature search strategy of this narrative review. This could be expanded upon in a secondary systematic review of gamified educational platforms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.383 · 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