Back to all available

Effectiveness of remote gamification interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

evidence-based-medicine
public-health
human-computer-interaction
mental-health
healthcare-services

Abstract

Background: Chronic diseases impose a growing burden. Gamification is gradually being introduced into remote digital health to help promote self-management for patients with chronic diseases. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of remote gamification interventions on improving health consequences, health behavior, and psychological outcomes in patients with chronic diseases.

Methodology: Articles were selected from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Standard mean difference (SMD) and random effects models were used to analyze changes in different outcomes. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis were also carried out.

Results: 16 studies were included in the systematic analysis. 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The findings showed that remote gamification interventions improved health consequences (SMD = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06 - 0.30; P = 0.004), health behavior (SMD = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.54 - 1.41; P < 0.001) and psychological outcomes (SMD = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.10 - 0.45; P = 0.002) in patients with chronic diseases. The results of the subgroup analysis suggested that remote gamification interventions were more effective when the intervention duration was 3-6 months (SMD = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06 - 0.43; P = 0.01) and all types of gamification elements were combined (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.06 - 0.95; P = 0.03).

Conclusions: Remote gamification interventions can promote self-management in patients with chronic diseases and improve different outcomes. The results of this study provide evidence for the effectiveness of gamification elements in the field of digital health.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].