Co-creation of a Serious Game About Radiotherapy: Participatory Action Research Study With Children Treated for Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with cancer who have to undergo radiotherapy can experience fear, because they have no prior knowledge of the treatment. One way of teaching children about the treatment and reducing their fear is to prepare them for it through serious games. Involvement of the end user in the design process within medicine is a way of ensuring that the product being developed will fit the intended user. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to outline the contributions made by children and their parents through participatory action research when designing a serious game about radiotherapy. METHODS: By means of participatory action research, children and their parents participated in the development of a serious game about radiotherapy. Nine children (7-10 years old) were included, each with an accompanying parent. A qualitative approach was used that included interviews and participant observation. Six rounds of iterative development process were used with the children and their parents. Meetings with the children were held either face-to-face or online. Each round resulted in a list of suggestions for changes to the game. A thematic analysis was performed based on the list of proposed changes, underpinned by all gathered data, to highlight how the children's participation changed the game. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified. The first theme was "The children's participation was affected by their health and treatment" and included the following subthemes: "an opportunity to share emotions and perceptions of radiotherapy" and "the possibility to participate was affected by the severity of the disease." The second theme was "participation allowed becoming an active part of game development" and included the following subthemes: "the opportunity to express sentiments about the game," "the emergence of a playable game through the children's contributions," and "the necessity of understanding the text." CONCLUSIONS: The method used in this study made the children active participants, and our results suggest that this method can be used by health care researchers to cocreate serious games with children. It is necessary to inform the children involved that the process takes time, and that the process can be altered to allow as much participation as possible without placing a burden on them. The children's illness affected their possibility to take part; thus, it is crucial to accommodate the children's needs when conducting similar studies. The parents' participation facilitated the meetings for their children, even though their involvement in the game design was negligible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".