Evaluating the Efficacy of a Serious Game to Deliver Health Education About Invasive Meningococcal Disease: Clustered Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is a serious, vaccine-preventable infectious disease that can be life-threatening. Teaching adolescents about the early detection and prevention of IMD can be challenging in a school environment, with educators reporting they lack confidence or expertise to cover this in the classroom environment. Professional guest educators are an alternative to cover specialist topics such as IMD; however, time and resourcing constraints can mean that these educators are not always available. Serious games may be an alternative to face-to-face education, where complex health information may be delivered via self-directed gameplay. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a serious game that can replace a face-to-face educator in a classroom setting to educate adolescents aged 12 years to 15 years. This study evaluates the efficacy of the Meningococcal Immunisation Awareness, Prevention and Protection app (MIApp), a serious game designed to replicate the information provided in a 30-minute face-to-face presentation provided by a trained educator. METHODS: This clustered, randomized controlled equivalence trial involved students (Years 7-10) from 6 secondary schools across metropolitan Western Australia who completed pre- and postintervention questionnaires with a follow-up at 3 months postintervention to measure the primary outcome of IMD knowledge acquisition following this self-guided intervention. The findings were compared with changes in an active control (comparison) group who received an in-class educational presentation about IMD transmission and protection. A questionnaire was developed to assess 9 key areas of knowledge. Median scores for knowledge pre- and postintervention were collected from a self-administered assessment of this questionnaire and, at 3 months postintervention, were compared between groups. A knowledge score of +/-2/16 was determined a priori to meet the criteria for equivalence. Participants who used MIApp were also asked a series of questions to assess the enjoyment of and engagement with the game. RESULTS: Of the 788 participating students, the median postintervention correct score in both the MIApp and control cohorts was 14/16 (87.5% correct responses), compared with the median pre-intervention correct score of 6/16 (37.5% correct responses), representing a significant (P<.001) increase in IMD knowledge in both groups. Improvements were retained in both groups 3 months after the initial intervention (median correct score: 11/16 in the intervention group; 12/16 in the control group; P=.86), demonstrating the efficacy of MIApp to deliver health education about IMD transmission and protection, although response rates in the follow-up cohort were low (255/788, 32.4%). CONCLUSIONS: MIApp met the predetermined threshold for equivalence, demonstrating similar improvements in knowledge posttrial and at the 3-month follow-up. Participating adolescents considered the MIApp game more enjoyable than a presentation, with equivalent improvements in knowledge. Serious games could represent a constructive tool to help teachers impart specialized health education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".