MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206726477 · doi:10.2196/32199

Examining the Effectiveness of Gamification in Mental Health Apps for Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3206726477 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Six, Kaileigh A. Byrne, Thomas P. Tibbett, Irene Pericot‐Valverde

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthModerationMeta-analysisMindfulnessClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Cognitive behavioral therapyDepressive symptomsCognitionMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous research showed that computerized cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively reduce depressive symptoms. Some mental health apps incorporate gamification into their app design, yet it is unclear whether features differ in their effectiveness to reduce depressive symptoms over and above mental health apps without gamification. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether mental health apps with gamification elements differ in their effectiveness to reduce depressive symptoms when compared to those that lack these elements. METHODS: A meta-analysis of studies that examined the effect of app-based therapy, including cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness, on depressive symptoms was performed. A total of 5597 articles were identified via five databases. After screening, 38 studies (n=8110 participants) remained for data extraction. From these studies, 50 total comparisons between postintervention mental health app intervention groups and control groups were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: A random effects model was performed to examine the effect of mental health apps on depressive symptoms compared to controls. The number of gamification elements within the apps was included as a moderator. Results indicated a small to moderate effect size across all mental health apps in which the mental health app intervention effectively reduced depressive symptoms compared to controls (Hedges g=-0.27, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.17; P<.001). The gamification moderator was not a significant predictor of depressive symptoms (β=-0.03, SE=0.03; P=.38), demonstrating no significant difference in effectiveness between mental health apps with and without gamification features. A separate meta-regression also did not show an effect of gamification elements on intervention adherence (β=-1.93, SE=2.28; P=.40). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that both mental health apps with and without gamification elements were effective in reducing depressive symptoms. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of mental health apps with gamification elements on depressive symptoms or adherence. This research has important clinical implications for understanding how gamification elements influence the effectiveness of mental health apps on depressive symptoms.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.033
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.314 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations92
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207