Introduction: The literature shows an optimistic landscape for the effectiveness of games in medical education. Nevertheless, games are not considered mainstream material in medical teaching. Two research questions that arise are the following: What pedagogical strategies do developers use when creating games for medical education? And what is the quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of games? Methods: A systematic review was made by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers following the Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines. We included peer-reviewed journal articles which described or assessed the use of serious games or gamified apps in medical education. We used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to assess the quality of evidence in the use of games. We also evaluated the pedagogical perspectives of such articles. Results: Even though game developers claim that games are useful pedagogical tools, the evidence on their effectiveness is moderate, as assessed by the MERSQI score. Behaviourism and cognitivism continue to be the predominant pedagogical strategies, and games are complementary devices that do not replace traditional medical teaching tools. Medical educators prefer simulations and quizzes focused on knowledge retention and skill development through repetition and do not demand the use of sophisticated games in their classrooms. Moreover, public access to medical games is limited. Discussion: Our aim was to put the pedagogical strategy into dialogue with the evidence on the effectiveness of the use of medical games. This makes sense since the practical use of games depends on the quality of the evidence about their effectiveness. Moreover, recognition of said pedagogical strategy would allow game developers to design more robust games which would greatly contribute to the learning process.

BackgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterised by difficulties with impulse control and affective dysregulation. It is unclear whether BPD contributes to the perpetration of violence or whether this is explained by comorbidity. We explored independent associations between categorical and dimensional representations of BPD and violence in the general population, and differential associations from individual BPD criteria.MethodsWe used a representative combined sample of 14,753 men and women from two British national surveys of adults (≥16 years). BPD was assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview II- Questionnaire. We measured self-reported violent behaviour in the past 5 years, including severity, victims and locations of incidents. Associations for binary, dimensional and trait-level exposures were performed using weighted logistic regression, adjusted for demography and comorbid psychopathology.ResultsCategorical diagnosis of BPD was associated only with intimate partner violence (IPV). Associations with serious violence leading to injuries and repetitive violence were better explained by comorbid substance misuse, anxiety and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). However, anger and impulsivity BPD items were independently associated with most violent outcomes including severity, repetition and injury; suicidal behaviours and affective instability were not associated with violence. Both trait-level and severity-dimensional analyses showed that BPD symptoms might impact males and females differently in terms of violence.ConclusionsFor individuals diagnosed BPD, violence is better explained by comorbidity. However, BPD individual traits show different pathways to violence at the population level. Gender differences in BPD traits and their severity indicate distinct, underlying mechanisms towards violence. BPD and traits should be evaluated in perpetrators of IPV.

No abstract