Gamification for Geriatric Mental Health: Level Up or Game Over?

Korolev, I. D.; Hsu, Courtney; Jain, Neha; Sekhon, Harmehr; Fahed, Mario; Vahia, Ipsit V.

doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2022.01.235

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others have suggested that compliance might be improved with gamification, where fun and engaging targets and feedback are blended with the clinical test to maintain compliance [ 17 , 18 ]. While there is some evidence to show that gamification can increase compliance rates [ 18 ], there is also evidence that gamifications require longer test times that can have deleterious effects on thresholds [ 19 , 20 ], and there is scant data on the benefits of gamification in geriatric populations [ 21 ]. Although the authors of the present study did not observe a relationship between older age and poor compliance/test reliability, a larger clinical trial is warranted to fully investigate associations with poor compliance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of a Smart Device over 12-Months for Home Monitoring of Patients with Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Prea

Guymer

Kong

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To determine the 12-month compliance with and retention of home monitoring (HM) with Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRFh) for patients with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD) and compare visual acuity (VA) and retinal sensitivity (RS) results to clinical measures. Methods: Participants were recruited to a 12-month HM study with weekly testing of vision with MRFh. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of iAMD, understand English instructions, VA ≥ 20/40, and access to an iPad. Supervised in-clinic testing of high contrast VA (HVA, ETDRS), low-luminance VA (LLVA, ETDRS with ND2 filter), and RS (Macular Integrity Assessment, MAIA, and MRF in-clinic, MRFc) was conducted every 6-months. Results: A total of 54 participants (67 ± 6.8 years) were enrolled. Compliance to weekly HM was 61% and study retention at 12-months was 50% of those with uptake (n = 46). No difference was observed between MRFc and MRFh across all RS and VA outcomes (p > 0.05). MRFh RS was higher than MAIA (29.1 vs. 27.1 dB, p < 0.001). MRFh HVA was not different from ETDRS (p = 0.08), but LLVA was 9 letters better (81.5 vs. 72.4 letters, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Over 12-months, MRFh yields a moderate level of compliance with (61%) and retention (50%) of weekly testing. Further studies are required to assess the ability of MRFh to detect early progression to nAMD.

show abstract