Conceptual Ambiguity Surrounding Gamification and Serious Games in Health Care: Literature Review and Development of Game-Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING)

Abstract

Background In health care, the use of game-based interventions to increase motivation, engagement, and overall sustainability of health behaviors is steadily becoming more common. The most prevalent types of game-based interventions in health care research are gamification and serious games. Various researchers have discussed substantial conceptual differences between these 2 concepts, supported by empirical studies showing differences in the effects on specific health behaviors. However, researchers also frequently report cases in which terms related to these 2 concepts are used ambiguously or even interchangeably. It remains unclear to what extent existing health care research explicitly distinguishes between gamification and serious games and whether it draws on existing conceptual considerations to do so. Objective This study aims to address this lack of knowledge by capturing the current state of conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care research. Furthermore, we aim to provide tools for researchers to disambiguate the reporting of game-based interventions. Methods We used a 2-step research approach. First, we conducted a systematic literature review of 206 studies, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals, containing terms related to gamification, serious games, or both. We analyzed their conceptualizations of gamification and serious games, as well as the distinctions between the two concepts. Second, based on the literature review findings, we developed a set of guidelines for researchers reporting on game-based interventions and evaluated them with a group of 9 experts from the field. Results Our results show that less than half of the concept mentions are accompanied by an explicit definition. To distinguish between the 2 concepts, we identified four common approaches: implicit distinction, synonymous use of terms, serious games as a type of gamified system, and distinction based on the full game dimension. Our Game-Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING) consist of 25 items grouped into four topics: conceptual focus, contribution, mindfulness about related concepts, and individual concept definitions. Conclusions Conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care literature are strongly heterogeneous, leading to conceptual ambiguity. Following the GAMING can support authors in rigorous reporting on study results of game-based interventions.

Nationwide Deployment of a Serious Game Designed to Improve COVID-19 Infection Prevention Practices in Switzerland: Prospective Web-Based Study

“…In addition, cultural and regional differences can alter whether a specific material should be considered a game, and the boundaries between serious games and gamification are often unclear [ 56 ]. However, using McCallum's [ 57 ] definition, there is little doubt that Escape COVID-19 is indeed a serious game as it is the result of the “creation of a whole new experience to achieve some change in the player.”…”

Therapeutic use of serious games in mental health: scoping review

“…At present, there is a conceptual ambiguity in the use of the two, but there is a defined need to report these interventions separately. 39 Although both are considered streams of CBT, gamification differs from serious games in domains of game mechanics, competition, reward system and primary purpose. 39 – 41 Whereas serious games has focused learning goals and objectives, gamification is about enhancing user engagement for more broad-based e-learning.…”

“… 39 – 41 Whereas serious games has focused learning goals and objectives, gamification is about enhancing user engagement for more broad-based e-learning. 39 – 42…”

Game Changer: Is Palliative Care Ready for Games?

“…The promise of serious games to advance palliative care's goals depends on the scientific rigor by which we design and evaluate these interventions. The scientific landscape is moving toward more intensive designs in which game reporting becomes uniform and transparent, 31 and evaluations are focused on efficacy and mechanism testing. 32 Researchers interested in serious game interventions should use frameworks specific to technology-based interventions (eg, the Behavioral Intervention Technology Model) or serious games.…”