MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402831095 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102798

Effect of digital health applications with or without gamification on physical activity and cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2024· review· en· W4402831095 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Nishi, Meaghan E Kavanagh, Kimberly Ramboanga, Sabrina Ayoub‐Charette, Sébastien Modol, Goretty M. Dias, Cyril W.C. Kendall, John L. Sievenpiper, Laura Chiavaroli

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPhysical activitySystematic reviewDigital healthPhysical therapyMEDLINEInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Use of health applications (apps) to support healthy lifestyles has intensified. Different app features may support effectiveness, including gamification defined as the use of game elements in a non-game situation. Whether health apps with gamification can impact behaviour change and cardiometabolic risk factors remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of health apps with gamification compared to non-gamified apps (control) on physical activity and cardiometabolic risk factors. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched through May 21st, 2024. We included controlled trials in adults (≥1 years) of all health backgrounds, with intervention periods ≥8-weeks, assessing the effect of gamification strategies used in health behaviour apps on adherence, cardiometabolic risk factors, total energy, and dietary nutrients of concern. Independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included physical activity and cardiometabolic risk factors (adiposity, glycemia, lipids, blood pressure and dietary factors). Data were pooled using the inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Protocol registration was on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04633070). Findings: [-0.44 to -0.12]; moderate) and body weight (-0.70 kg [-1.18 to -0.22]; moderate), and small important reductions in body fat (-1.92% [-2.71 to -1.14]; high) and waist circumference (-1.16 cm [-1.93 to -0.39]; moderate). No differences were observed for other outcomes (very low-to-high). Interpretation: Current evidence provides a good indication that gamification features in apps targeting physical activity or measures of adiposity results in slight improvements in these outcomes compared to non-gamified versions. Recommendations to use an app for increasing physical activity or targeting weight loss should consider those with gamification features. Funding: None.

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 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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1010.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.372 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207