Effectiveness of applied and casual games for young people's mental health: A systematic review of randomised controlled studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many youth experience mental health problems and digital games hold potential as mental health interventions. This systematic review provides an overview of randomised controlled studies assessing the effectiveness of digital applied and casual games for improving mental health in youth aged 6-24 years. A systematic search of PsycINFO, Web of Science and Pubmed yielded 145 eligible studies. Studies on (sub)clinical participant samples (n = 75) most often focused on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism and anxiety. Applied games were found most effective for improving social skills, verbal memory and anxiety, whereas casual games were found most effective for improving depression, anxiety and ADHD. Studies involving healthy youth (n = 70) were grouped into papers examining anxiety in medical settings, momentary effects on positive and negative affect, and papers employing a longitudinal design measuring mental health trait outcomes. Promising results were found for the use of games as distraction tools in medical settings, and for applied and casual games for improving momentary affect. Overall, our findings demonstrate the potential of digital games for improving mental health. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed, such as developing evaluation guidelines, clearly defining applied games, harmonising outcome measures, including positive outcomes, and examining nonspecific factors that may influence symptom improvement as well.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".