Novel Smartphone Game Improves Physical Activity Behavior in Type 2 Diabetes

Höchsmann, Christoph; Müller, Olivia; Ambühl, Muriel; Klenk, Christopher; Königstein, Karsten; Infanger, Denis; Walz, Steffen P.; Schmidt‐Trucksäss, Arno

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.02.017

Cited by 51 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most frameworks focused on mechanics of specific interventions (simulation theory [ 33 ], cognitive training reorganization on brain network infrastructure [ 34 ], spaced education [ 35 ], neurofeedback for pain control [ 36 ], integrative rehabilitation [ 31 ], and self-management [ 33 , 37 ]). Other frameworks focused on intervention development (intervention mapping approach [ 38 ] and Gagne’s instruction strategies [ 39 ]) and rationales for serious game features (behavioral economics [ 40 , 41 ], dual-task training [ 32 ], narrative transportation theory [ 42 ], self-determination theory [ 42 - 44 ], and behavior change theory [ 43 , 44 ]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This varied vastly from serious games meant to provide additional, novel, and meaningful support but otherwise not replacing an existing intervention, such as interventions focused on teaching self-management or coping skills. For example, Höchsmann et al [ 43 , 44 ] reported on their intervention—MOBIGAME—which aimed to reduce diabetes by engaging patients in an immersive, relaxing program focused on increasing physical activity, motivation, and adherence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mapping Behavioral Health Serious Game Interventions for Adults With Chronic Illness: Scoping Review

Thomas¹,

Sivakumar²,

Babichenko³

et al. 2020

JMIR Serious Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping Behavioral Health Serious Game Interventions for Adults With Chronic Illness: Scoping Review

Thomas¹,

Sivakumar²,

Babichenko³

et al. 2020

JMIR Serious Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such games have been developed and tested for other patient populations and can be used for patients with CVD; for example, a novel smartphone game for patients with type 2 diabetes has been shown to improve intrinsic physical activity motivation 13 and de facto physical activity, measured as steps per day over 24 weeks. 14 Self-care behaviour such as ‘body-listening’; that is, helping patients to recognise symptoms of angina, fainting, breathlessness or oedema might also be learned and practised through a serious game specially designed for this patient group. Furthermore, games can be instrumental in helping patients to train their decision-making skills and to realise what can happen when different decisions are made in response to symptoms.…”

Section: The Opportunities Of Serious Games In Prevention and Rehabilmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These games are promising for patients with CVD and can improve their exercise capacity and energy expenditure. 14,16,17 Exergaming might be a feasible and safe supplementation to increase physical activity. Several characteristics, such as sensory stimuli or challenge, incorporated in exergaming could help make physical activity fun and engaging, while maintaining essential physical activity requirements.…”

Section: The Opportunities Of Serious Games In Prevention and Rehabilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Let the games begin: Serious games in prevention and rehabilitation to improve outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease

Ingadóttir

Jaarsma

Klompstra

et al. 2020

European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For this reason, this study was at high risk for allocation concealment too. Four studies [38,43,44] were at high risk of bias for the 'blinding of outcome assessment' item because they measured PA using only self-reports. Six studies [33,37,43,44,49] were at high risk of bias for the 'incomplete outcome data' item because they reported high drop-out and did not included intention-to-threat analyses.…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does gamification improve physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mazéas¹,

Duclos²,

Pereira³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The use of gamification to change behaviors and promote physical activity is a promising avenue to tackle the global physical inactivity pandemic and the current prevalence of chronic diseases. However, we do not have yet evidence of the effectiveness of gamified interventions with the existence of mixed results in the literature.Objective. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of gamified interventions and their healthcare potential by testing the scalability and sustainability of their influence on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviors (SB).Methods. Five electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published since 2010. Eligibility criteria were based on components of PICO (participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes). Studies were included when they used gamified interventions in daily life with an active or inactive control group, and when they assessed a PA or SB outcome. Studies were excluded when the intervention was based on an active video game using a gaming console. We conducted meta-analyses using a random effects model approach. Sensitivity analyses, influence analyses and publication bias analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our results.Results. The main meta-analysis performed on 16 studies and 2407 participants, revealed a small to medium summary effect of gamified interventions on PA behavior (g = 0.42 (95%CI [0.14, 0.69]). No statistical difference was found between different subgroups (adults vs adolescents, healthy participants vs adults with chronic diseases) and no interaction effects with moderators like age, gender or BMI, suggesting good scalability of gamified interventions. Moreover, the effect appears better on the step count (MD = +1609.56 steps per day (95%CI [372.39, 2846.73]) than on moderate-to-vigorous PA (g = 0.31 (95%CI [-0.19, 0.80]). The long-term effect (measured with follow-up averaging 14 weeks after the end of the intervention) is more volatile with a very small to small effect (g = 0.15, [0.07, 0.23]). Conclusions. This meta-analysis confirms that gamified interventions are promising to promote PA in various publics. However, if the effect persists after the end of the program, suggesting that it is not just a novelty effect due to the playful nature of gamification, it seems volatile with a small long-term effect. The integration of gamification in more global healthcare interventions could be a way to address this low sustainability. Future rigorous trials are needed to explore these perspectives.

show abstract

Novel Smartphone Game Improves Physical Activity Behavior in Type 2 Diabetes

Cited by 51 publications

References 33 publications

Mapping Behavioral Health Serious Game Interventions for Adults With Chronic Illness: Scoping Review

Mapping Behavioral Health Serious Game Interventions for Adults With Chronic Illness: Scoping Review

Let the games begin: Serious games in prevention and rehabilitation to improve outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease

Does gamification improve physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About