Assessing the Importance of Content Versus Design for Successful Crowdfunding of Health Education Games: Online Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health education games make health-related tasks enjoyable and interactive, thereby encouraging user participation. Entrepreneurs and health educators can leverage online crowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter, to transform their innovative ideas into funded projects. Objective: This research focuses on health education game initiatives on Kickstarter. Through an online user survey, it aims to understand user perceptions and evaluate the significance of 8 distinct components that may influence the success of such crowdfunding initiatives. Methods: A total of 75 participants evaluated games using 8 dimensions: game rules, learning objectives, narrative, content organization, motivation, interactivity, skill building, and assessment and feedback. The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis, exploratory factor analysis, the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, and multivariate analysis. Results: Exploratory data analysis showed that, among the 8 dimensions, skill building, content organization, and interactivity were the top-ranking dimensions most closely associated with crowdfunding health education game. The 8 dimensions can be grouped into 3 categories from the exploratory factor analysis: game content-, instruction-, and game design-related components. Further statistical analysis confirmed the correlation between these dimensions with the successful crowdfunding of health education games. Conclusions: This empirical analysis identified critical factors for game proposal design that can increase the likelihood of securing crowdfunding support.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".