Background Serious games for health are increasingly being used to address health outcomes in patients with chronic illnesses. These studies vary in their study designs, patient populations, frameworks, outcome variables, and degree of specificity of the serious game intervention. Objective This scoping review aims to clarify the conceptual features of the existing research related to serious games designed to improve cognitive and behavioral outcomes in adults with chronic illness. Methods We applied the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for scoping reviews methodology, including an a priori research question. We searched 4 electronic databases to identify articles published through November 2019. Inclusion criteria encompassed (1) adults 18 years or older; (2) patients with a diagnosis of chronic illness; (3) a serious game intervention; and (4) defined patient outcomes that assess patients’ behavioral, cognitive, or health outcomes. Results Of the 3305 articles identified, 38 were included in the review. We charted and analyzed the theoretical frameworks, key concepts, and outcome variables of these studies with summaries of features across articles. The majority of studies used a randomized controlled trial design (23/38, 61%), included a custom serious game intervention (22/38, 58%), and lacked a theoretical framework (25/38, 66%). Common outcome variables included quality of life (16/38, 42%), mood (15/38, 39%), cognitive function (13/38, 34%), symptoms (12/38, 32%), and physical activity (9/38, 24%). Key differences between studies included whether or not serious games aimed to train versus teach patients, be widely accessible versus tailored interventions, or replace versus complement current treatments. Conclusions This scoping review defines the current landscape of research in serious games for health research targeting behavioral and cognitive outcomes in adults with chronic disease. Studies have addressed a variety of patient populations and diverse patient outcomes. Researchers wanting to build on the current research should integrate theoretical frameworks into the design of the intervention and trial to more clearly articulate the active ingredients and mechanisms of serious games.

No abstract

Although at least 25 million adults are transgender worldwide, few phase III clinical trials have enrolled transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people. HIV is the only therapeutic area to include TGD people intentionally in phase III randomized clinical trials during the development of certain newer HIV pharmacologic prevention interventions. Pharmacologic assessments for HIV prevention efficacy in TGD populations are important, as there may be specific considerations for product use and potential interactions with hormone therapies. Herein, we summarize ongoing and completed phase III HIV trials that included TGD people as part of the study population, we examine investigators’ strategies for recruiting and engaging TGD priority populations in these phase III trials, and we comment on the implications of these studies for prioritizing TGD populations in clinical pharmacology research within the phase III clinical trial landscape.

The field of transgender health has grown exponentially since the early 2010s. While this increased visibility has not been without controversy, there is growing acknowledgement of the needs of transgender, nonbinary, and gender expansive (TNG) patients and the health disparities they experience compared to the cisgender population. There is also increased interest among clinicians and trainees in providing gender-affirming care in all medical specialties. This is particularly relevant in psychiatry as mental health disparities in TNG patients have been well-documented. TNG patients experience significant minority stress and higher rates of psychiatric illness, self-harm, suicidality, and psychiatric hospitalization compared to their cisgender peers. In this review, we will cover potential interactions and side effects relevant to psychiatric medication management for the three most common medication classes prescribed as part of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT): gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor agonists, estradiol, and testosterone. Although no studies directly examining the efficacy of psychiatric medications or their interactions with GAHT for TNG patients have been published yet, we have synthesized the existing literature from both cisgender and TNG patients to shed light on health care disparities seen in TNG patients. Since clinicians’ lack of comfort and familiarity with gender-affirming care contributes significantly to these disparities, we hope this narrative review will help psychiatric prescribers provide TNG patients with the same quality of care that cisgender patients receive.