Nutrition Education and Dietary Behavior Change Games: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Games provide an attractive venue for engaging participants and increasing nutrition-related knowledge and dietary behavior change, but no review has appeared devoted to this literature. A scoping review of nutrition education and dietary behavior change videogames or interactive games was conducted. A systematic search was made of PubMed, Agricola, and Google Scholar. Information was abstracted from 22 publications. To be included, the publication had to include a videogame or interactive experience involving games (a videogame alone, minigames inserted into a larger multimedia experience, or game as part of a human-delivered intervention); game's design objective was to influence dietary behavior, a psychosocial determinant of a dietary behavior, or nutrition knowledge (hereinafter referred to as diet-related); must have been reported in English and must have appeared in a professional publication, including some report of outcomes or results (thereby passing some peer review). This review was restricted to the diet-related information in the selected games. Diversity in targeted dietary knowledge and intake behaviors, targeted populations/audiences, game mechanics, behavioral theories, research designs, and findings was revealed. The diversity and quality of the research in general was poor, precluding a meta-analysis or systematic review. All but one of the studies reported some positive outcome from playing the game(s). One reported that a web-based education program resulted in more change than the game-based intervention. Studies of games may have been missed; a number of dietary/nutrition games are known for which no evaluation is known; and the data presented on the games and research were limited and inconsistent. Conclusions and Implications: A firmer research base is needed to establish the efficacy and effectiveness of nutrition education and dietary behavior change games.

Serious Games for Nutritional Education: Online Survey on Preferences, Motives, and Behaviors Among Young Adults at University

“…The design and development of serious games is a cost- and time-intensive process that requires the involvement of both experts and target groups [ 43 , 44 ]. Baranowski et al [ 43 ] reported that it takes three-and-a-half years to develop a health-related behavior change game.…”

“…The design and development of serious games is a cost- and time-intensive process that requires the involvement of both experts and target groups [ 43 , 44 ]. Baranowski et al [ 43 ] reported that it takes three-and-a-half years to develop a health-related behavior change game. Serious games released by commercial vendors might be more attractive to players because of high-end graphical user interfaces, multiple levels, animation, and interactivity than their counterparts from research facilities.…”

“…These programs are applied to change knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about healthy dietary behaviors and also affect the dietary behaviors themselves [ 10 - 12 ]. For instance, serious games present a novel digital approach to nutritional education by conveying nutritional information in an entertaining format [ 13 , 14 ]. In recent years, the market for games and number of gaming individuals has increased.…”

“…In 2017, 34.1 million people in Germany played computer and video games [ 15 ]. The literature indicates that serious gameplay might be an appealing and effective tool for nutritional education and dietary behavior change [ 14 , 16 ]. A few studies investigated the effects of serious games on nutritional education among (young) adults [ 12 ].…”

Design Features Associated with User Engagement in Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion in Youth: A Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies

“…8 In addition, relevant studies were identified from bibliographies in relevant reviews. 8,11,12,21,[37][38][39][40][41][42] For all qualifying articles, relevant studies were identified independently by screening titles and abstracts, by one researcher and one-third by a second researcher. Next, full texts were read independently to determine final eligibility, by one researcher and one-third by a second researcher.…”