Dataset Information

Examining the Effectiveness of Gamification in Mental Health Apps for Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous research showed that computerized cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively reduce depressive symptoms. Some mental health apps incorporate gamification into their app design, yet it is unclear whether features differ in their effectiveness to reduce depressive symptoms over and above mental health apps without gamification.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine whether mental health apps with gamification elements differ in their effectiveness to reduce depressive symptoms when compared to those that lack these elements.

Methods

A meta-analysis of studies that examined the effect of app-based therapy, including cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness, on depressive symptoms was performed. A total of 5597 articles were identified via five databases. After screening, 38 studies (n=8110 participants) remained for data extraction. From these studies, 50 total comparisons between postintervention mental health app intervention groups and control groups were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

A random effects model was performed to examine the effect of mental health apps on depressive symptoms compared to controls. The number of gamification elements within the apps was included as a moderator. Results indicated a small to moderate effect size across all mental health apps in which the mental health app intervention effectively reduced depressive symptoms compared to controls (Hedges g=-0.27, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.17; P<.001). The gamification moderator was not a significant predictor of depressive symptoms (β=-0.03, SE=0.03; P=.38), demonstrating no significant difference in effectiveness between mental health apps with and without gamification features. A separate meta-regression also did not show an effect of gamification elements on intervention adherence (β=-1.93, SE=2.28; P=.40).

Conclusions

The results show that both mental health apps with and without gamification elements were effective in reducing depressive symptoms. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of mental health apps with gamification elements on depressive symptoms or adherence. This research has important clinical implications for understanding how gamification elements influence the effectiveness of mental health apps on depressive symptoms.

SUBMITTER: Six SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669581 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is little research on the application of gamification to mental health and well-being. Furthermore, usage of gamification-related terminology is inconsistent. Current applications of gamification for health and well-being have also been critiqued for adopting a behaviorist approach that relies on positive reinforcement and extrinsic motivators. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to analyze current applications of gamification for mental health and well-being by answering 3 research questions (RQs). RQ1: which gamification elements are most commonly applied to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being? RQ2: which mental health and well-being domains are most commonly targeted by these gamified apps and technologies? RQ3: what reasons do researchers give for applying gamification to these apps and technologies? A systematic review of the literature was conducted to answer these questions. METHODS:We searched ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, IEEE Explore, JMIR, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science for qualifying papers published between the years 2013 and 2018. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, papers were coded for gamification elements and mental health and well-being domains according to existing taxonomies in the game studies and medical literature. During the coding process, it was necessary to adapt our coding frame and revise these taxonomies. Thematic analysis was conducted to answer RQ3. RESULTS:The search and screening process identified 70 qualifying papers that collectively reported on 50 apps and technologies. The most commonly observed gamification elements were levels or progress feedback, points or scoring, rewards or prizes, narrative or theme, personalization, and customization; the least commonly observed elements were artificial assistance, unlockable content, social cooperation, exploratory or open-world approach, artificial challenge, and randomness. The most commonly observed mental health and well-being domains were anxiety disorders and well-being, whereas the least commonly observed domains were conduct disorder and bipolar disorders. Researchers' justification for applying gamification to improving mental health and well-being was coded in 59% (41/70) of the papers and was broadly divided into 2 themes: (1) promoting engagement and (2) enhancing an intervention's intended effects. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that the current application of gamification to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being does not align with the trend of positive reinforcement critiqued in the greater health and well-being literature. We also observed overlap between the most commonly used gamification techniques and existing behavior change frameworks. Results also suggest that the application of gamification is not driven by health behavior change theory, and that many researchers may treat gamification as a black box without consideration for its underlying mechanisms. We call for the inclusion of more comprehensive and explicit descriptions of how gamification is applied and the standardization of applied games terminology within and across fields.

Project description:BackgroundThere are an increasing number of mobile apps available for adolescents with mental health problems and an increasing interest in assimilating mobile health (mHealth) into mental health services. Despite the growing number of apps available, the evidence base for their efficacy is unclear.ObjectiveThis review aimed to systematically appraise the available research evidence on the efficacy and acceptability of mobile apps for mental health in children and adolescents younger than 18 years.MethodsThe following were systematically searched for relevant publications between January 2008 and July 2016: APA PsychNet, ACM Digital Library, Cochrane Library, Community Care Inform-Children, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Social Policy and Practice, Web of Science, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, and OpenGrey. Abstracts were included if they described mental health apps (targeting depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, self-harm, suicide prevention, conduct disorder, eating disorders and body image issues, schizophrenia, psychosis, and insomnia) for mobile devices and for use by adolescents younger than 18 years.ResultsA total of 24 publications met the inclusion criteria. These described 15 apps, two of which were available to download. Two small randomized trials and one case study failed to demonstrate a significant effect of three apps on intended mental health outcomes. Articles that analyzed the content of six apps for children and adolescents that were available to download established that none had undergone any research evaluation. Feasibility outcomes suggest acceptability of apps was good and app usage was moderate.ConclusionsOverall, there is currently insufficient research evidence to support the effectiveness of apps for children, preadolescents, and adolescents with mental health problems. Given the number and pace at which mHealth apps are being released on app stores, methodologically robust research studies evaluating their safety, efficacy, and effectiveness is promptly needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Recently attention has begun to focus not only on assessing the effectiveness of interventions to tackle mental health problems, but also on measures to prevent physical co-morbidity. Individuals with mental health problems are at significantly increased risk of chronic physical health problems, such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, as well as reduced life expectancy. The excess costs of co-morbid physical and mental health problems are substantial. Potentially, measures to reduce the risk of co-morbid physical health problems may represent excellent value for money. METHODS: To conduct a systematic review to determine what is known about economic evaluations of actions to promote better physical health in individuals identified as having a clinically diagnosed mental disorder, but no physical co-morbidity. Systematic searches of databases were supplemented by hand searches of relevant journals and websites. RESULTS: Of 1970 studies originally assessed, 11 met our inclusion criteria. In addition, five protocols for other studies were also identified. Studies looked at exercise programmes, nutritional advice, smoking, alcohol and drug cessation, and reducing the risk of blood borne infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. All of the lifestyle and smoking cessation studies focused on people with depression and anxiety disorders. Substance abuse and infectious disease prevention studies focused on people with psychoses and bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: There is a very small, albeit growing, literature on the cost effectiveness of interventions to promote the physical health of people with mental health problems. Most studies suggest that value for money actions in specific contexts and settings are available. Given that the success or failure of health promoting interventions can be very context specific, more studies are needed in more settings, focused on different population groups with different mental health problems and reporting intermediate and long term outcomes. There is a need to better distinguish between resource use and costs in a transparent manner, including impacts outside of the health care system. Issues such as programme fidelity, uptake and adherence should also be accounted for in economic analysis. The role of behavioural psychological techniques to influence health behaviours might also be considered.

Project description:BackgroundThe global shortage of mental health workers has prompted the utilization of technological advancements, such as chatbots, to meet the needs of people with mental health conditions. Chatbots are systems that are able to converse and interact with human users using spoken, written, and visual language. While numerous studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of using chatbots in mental health, no reviews have pooled the results of those studies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health through summarizing and pooling the results of previous studies.MethodsA systematic review was carried out to achieve this objective. The search sources were 7 bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO), the search engine "Google Scholar," and backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Data extracted from studies were synthesized using narrative and statistical methods, as appropriate.ResultsOf 1048 citations retrieved, we identified 12 studies examining the effect of using chatbots on 8 outcomes. Weak evidence demonstrated that chatbots were effective in improving depression, distress, stress, and acrophobia. In contrast, according to similar evidence, there was no statistically significant effect of using chatbots on subjective psychological wellbeing. Results were conflicting regarding the effect of chatbots on the severity of anxiety and positive and negative affect. Only two studies assessed the safety of chatbots and concluded that they are safe in mental health, as no adverse events or harms were reported.ConclusionsChatbots have the potential to improve mental health. However, the evidence in this review was not sufficient to definitely conclude this due to lack of evidence that their effect is clinically important, a lack of studies assessing each outcome, high risk of bias in those studies, and conflicting results for some outcomes. Further studies are required to draw solid conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of chatbots.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019141219; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019141219.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions aimed at modifying behavior for promoting health and disease management are traditionally resource intensive and difficult to scale. Mobile health apps are being used for these purposes; however, their effects on health outcomes have been mixed.ObjectiveThis study aims to summarize the evidence of rigorously evaluated health-related apps on health outcomes and explore the effects of features present in studies that reported a statistically significant difference in health outcomes.MethodsA literature search was conducted in 7 databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). A total of 5 reviewers independently screened and extracted the study characteristics. We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled effect size estimates for meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted based on follow-up time, stand-alone app interventions, level of personalization, and pilot studies. Logistic regression was used to examine the structure of app features.ResultsFrom the database searches, 8230 records were initially identified. Of these, 172 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were predominantly conducted in high-income countries (164/172, 94.3%). The majority had follow-up periods of 6 months or less (143/172, 83.1%). Over half of the interventions were delivered by a stand-alone app (106/172, 61.6%). Static/one-size-fits-all (97/172, 56.4%) was the most common level of personalization. Intervention frequency was daily or more frequent for the majority of the studies (123/172, 71.5%). A total of 156 studies involving 21,422 participants reported continuous health outcome data. The use of an app to modify behavior (either as a stand-alone or as part of a larger intervention) confers a slight/weak advantage over standard care in health interventions (standardized mean difference=0.38 [95% CI 0.31-0.45]; I2=80%), although heterogeneity was high.ConclusionsThe evidence in the literature demonstrates a steady increase in the rigorous evaluation of apps aimed at modifying behavior to promote health and manage disease. Although the literature is growing, the evidence that apps can improve health outcomes is weak. This finding may reflect the need for improved methodological and evaluative approaches to the development and assessment of health care improvement apps.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42018106868; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=106868.

Project description:BackgroundGamification refers to the use of game elements in nongame contexts. The use of gamification to change behaviors and promote physical activity (PA) is a promising avenue for tackling the global physical inactivity pandemic and the current prevalence of chronic diseases. However, there is no evidence of the effectiveness of gamified interventions with the existence of mixed results in the literature.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of gamified interventions and their health care potential by testing the generalizability and sustainability of their influence on PA and sedentary behavior.MethodsA total of 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from 2010 to 2020. Eligibility criteria were based on the components of the participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes framework. 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 sedentary behavior outcome. 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.ResultsThe main meta-analysis performed on 16 studies and 2407 participants revealed a small to medium summary effect of gamified interventions on PA behavior (Hedges g=0.42, 95% CI 0.14-0.69). No statistical difference among different subgroups (adults vs adolescents and healthy participants vs adults with chronic diseases) and no interaction effects with moderators such as age, gender, or BMI were found, suggesting good generalizability of gamified interventions to different user populations. The effect was statistically significant when gamified interventions were compared with inactive control groups, such as waiting lists (Hedges g=0.58, 95% CI 0.08-1.07), and active control groups that included a nongamified PA intervention (Hedges g=0.23, 95% CI 0.05-0.41). This suggests that gamified interventions are not only efficient in changing behavior but also more effective compared with other behavioral interventions. The long-term effect (measured with follow-up averaging 14 weeks after the end of the intervention) was weaker, with a very small to small effect (Hedges g=0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.23).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis confirms that gamified interventions are promising for promoting PA in various populations. Additional analyses revealed that this effect persists after the follow-up period, suggesting that it is not just a novelty effect caused by the playful nature of gamification, and that gamified products appear effective compared with equivalent nongamified PA interventions. Future rigorous trials are required to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundAmong the general public, there appears to be a growing need and interest in receiving digital mental health and well-being support. In response to this, mental health apps (MHapps) are becoming available for monitoring, managing, and promoting positive mental health and well-being. Thus far, evidence supports favorable outcomes when users engage with MHapps, yet there is a relative paucity of reviews on apps that support positive mental health and well-being.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review the available research on MHapps that promote emotion regulation, positive mental health, and well-being in the general population aged 18-45 years. More specifically, the review aimed at providing a systematic description of the theoretical background and features of MHapps while evaluating any potential effectiveness.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of key databases, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), was performed until January 2021. Studies were included if they described standalone mental health and well-being apps for adults without a formal mental health diagnosis. The quality of all studies was assessed against the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. In addition, the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB-2) was used to assess randomized control trials (RCTs). Data were extracted using a modified extraction form from the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were then undertaken to address the review aims.ResultsIn total, 3156 abstracts were identified. Of these, 52 publications describing 48 MHapps met the inclusion criteria. Together, the studies evaluated interventions across 15 countries. Thirty-nine RCTs were identified suggesting some support for the role of individual MHapps in improving and promoting mental health and well-being. Regarding the pooled effect, MHapps, when compared to controls, showed a small effect for reducing mental health symptoms (k=19, Hedges g=-0.24, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.14; P<.001) and improving well-being (k=13, g=0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29, P=.004), and a medium effect for emotion regulation (k=6, g=0.49, 95% CI 0.23-0.74, P<.001). There is also a wide knowledge base of creative and innovative ways to engage users in techniques such as mood monitoring and guided exercises. Studies were generally assessed to contribute unclear or a high risk of bias, or to be of medium to low methodological quality.ConclusionsThe emerging evidence for MHapps that promote positive mental health and well-being suggests promising outcomes. Despite a wide range of MHapps, few apps specifically promote emotion regulation. However, our findings may position emotion regulation as an important mechanism for inclusion in future MHapps. A fair proportion of the included studies were pilot or feasibility trials (k=17, 33%), and full-scale RCTs reported high attrition rates and nondiverse samples. Given the number and pace at which MHapps are being released, further robust research is warranted to inform the development and testing of evidence-based programs.