Virtual serious games for women’s health education: A scoping review protocol v1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:This scoping review aimsto identify and map the current state of research on virtual serious games (VSGs) designed for women’s health education, with a focus on intendedusers, design characteristics, and assessed outcomes. Inclusion criteria:Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs examining the use of virtual serious games intended for women’s health education. Grey literature sources such as conference abstracts, text, opinion papers,dissertations,and other unpublished material will be excluded. There is no limit on the publication period; however, sources are limited to English. Methods:The proposed review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [18] and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [19]. Databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (OVID), CINHAL – Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO), Web of Science (Clarivate), PsycINFO (OVID), and Embase (OVID) databases. Hand-searching by reviewing selected articles' reference lists will complement the search and ensure relevant studies are not missed. All databases will be searched with no restrictions on the time frame. Search results from each database will be imported into EndNote20 and transferred into Covidence, where duplicates will be removed. Source selection (both at the title/abstract screening and full-text screening) will be performed by two reviewers, independentlyusing the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion or by the decision of a third reviewer. The primary researcher will extract data from the sources using a custom data extraction tool and verified by a second reviewer. Qualitative content analysis for basic coding of data to a particular category and descriptive statistical analysis (i.e., frequency counting) will be conducted relating to the study’s research questions. The SR results will be presented in tabular format and accompanied by a narrative summary describing how the results relate to the review objectives and questions. Expected Results: The expected results of this scoping review are to provide a comprehensive overview of existing VSGs developed for women's education, highlighting the target user groups, key design features, and the types of outcomes that have been evaluated. This will help identify gaps in the literature and inform future development and research in the area.
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 | 0.090 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.025 |
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".