Effect of Digital Serious Games Related to Patient Care in Pharmacy Education: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background. In recent years, the use of digital serious games in the education of healthcare students and professionals has been frequent. However, there are no high-level evidence studies focused on the effect of this tool in the development of patient care-related competencies in pharmacy education. Aim. To assess the effect of digital serious games on learning about patient care in pharmacy education. Methods. The Cochrane Library, ERIC, Embase, IPA, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were reviewed to identify relevant studies published up to October 2, 2018. Standardized and non-standardized terms including “games,” “serious games,” “pharmacy education,” “pharmacists,” and “pharmacy students” were used as search terms. The quality of the studies was assessed using validated tools. Results and Discussion. Of the 1,521 studies reviewed, seven met the eligibility criteria. Three studies were performed in the United States (42.85%). The most-frequent design studies were randomized controlled studies (n = 3; 42.85%). The number of participants ranged between 6 and 354. In most cases, game scenarios were based on simulations in which users performed the role of the pharmacist (n = 5; 71.42%). The predominant primary outcome was attitudes (n = 5; 71.42%) related to patient care. Only one study (14.27%) demonstrated significant improvements in the assessed primary outcomes. The methodology of the included studies lacked robustness. Conclusion. The effect of learning technological tools on patient care-related competencies was not significant in most of the included studies. Future studies must provide high-quality, integrated-manner evidence on the effect of digital serious games in pharmacy education (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) to facilitate the transfer of learning to real-life scenarios and changes in organizational practices.

The purpose, adaptability, confidence, and engrossment model: A novel approach for supporting professional trainees’ motivation, engagement, and academic achievement

“…Based on SDT, maintaining learners' intrinsic motivation also requires facilitating needs satisfaction (Ryan and Deci, 2017). To date, strategies directed toward trainees' interest have received a significant amount of attention in the professions education literature in the form of serious games and gamification (Wang et al, 2016;Dankbaar, 2017;Rutledge et al, 2018;Gentry et al, 2019;Maheu-Cadotte et al, 2021;Silva et al, 2021;Min et al, 2022).…”

É brincando que se aprende! Uso de jogos educativos como estratégia na construção do conhecimento em Assistência Farmacêutica

“…No Brasil, os jogos educativos vêm sendo comumente utilizados como uma estratégia educativa nas áreas de Medicina e Enfermagem 11,[16][17][18][19][20][21] ; contudo, existem poucos estudos publicados no ensino da Farmácia e são usualmente voltados para o ciclo básico 20,21 . A maioria das experiências com o uso de jogos por estudantes de farmácia é proveniente de estudos internacionais, sobretudo a partir da última década, refletindo a crescente tendência no uso dessa ferramenta educativa 22,23 . Recente estudo multicêntrico conduzido em sete universidades de cinco diferentes países ao redor do mundo indicou o jogo educativo como uma ferramenta potencial para propiciar importantes experiências de aprendizagem, promover a educação interprofissional, reforçar a segurança do paciente, além de preparar os estudantes de Farmácia para a prática futura 24 .…”

Motivational Design for Web-Based Instruction in Health Professions Education: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Directed Content Analysis

“…Studies will also be identified by hand searching the reference lists of previous systematic reviews related to web-based instruction in HPE [38,44,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58].…”

“…Although previous reviews have focused on motivational design features of web-based instruction in HPE [38,44,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58], none have sought to (1) achieve the specific goal of using existing evidence to refine models of motivational design, (2) propose which types of evidence will be required to meet this goal, (3) identify the study designs that can generate such evidence (eg, studies comparing motivational design strategies), and (4) appraise the degree to which studies have generated such evidence. Thus, the value of our review lies in its ability to appraise where we have been and to inform where we ought to go.…”