Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

The idea of using serious games to effectuate better outcomes in health care has gained significant traction among a growing community of researchers, developers, and health care professionals. Many now recognize the importance of creating evidence-based games that are purposefully designed to address physical and mental health challenges faced by end users. To date, no regulatory resources have been established to guide the development of serious games for health (SGH). Developers must therefore look elsewhere for guidance. Although a more robust level of evidence exists in the research literature, it is neither structured nor is there any clear consensus. Developers currently use a variety of approaches and methodologies. The establishment of a well-defined framework that represents the consensus views of the SGH research community would help developers improve the efficiency of internal development processes, as well as chances of success. A consensus framework would also enhance the credibility of SGH and help provide quality evidence of their effectiveness. This research aimed to (1) identify and evaluate the requirements, recommendations, and guidelines proposed by the SGH community in the research literature, and; (2) develop a consensus framework to guide developers, designers, researchers, and health care professionals in the development of evidence-based SGH. A critical review of the literature was performed in October to November 2018. A 3-step search strategy and a predefined set of inclusion criteria were used to identify relevant articles in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, CiteSeerX, and Google Scholar. A supplemental search of publications from regulatory authorities was conducted to capture their specific requirements. Three researchers independently evaluated the identified articles. The evidence was coded and categorized for analysis. This review identified 5 categories of high-level requirements and 20 low-level requirements suggested by the SGH community. These advocate a methodological approach that is multidisciplinary, iterative, and participatory. On the basis of the requirements identified, we propose a framework for developing theory-driven, evidence-based SGH. It comprises 5 stages that are informed by various stakeholders. It focuses on building strong scientific and design foundations that guide the creative and technical development. It includes quantitative trials to evaluate whether the SGH achieve the intended outcomes, as well as efforts to disseminate trial findings and follow-up monitoring after the SGH are rolled out for use. This review resulted in the formulation of a framework for developing theory-driven, evidence-based SGH that represents many of the requirements set out by SGH stakeholders in the literature. It covers all aspects of the development process (scientific, technological, and design) and is transparently described in sufficient detail to allow SGH stakeholders to implement it in a wide variety of projects, irrespective of discipline, health care segments, or focus.

This article considers players’ experiences seeking out new games to play, and their use of the Australian National Classification Scheme in doing so. The global video game industry is booming, with hundreds of games being released each month across numerous platforms. As a result, players have an unprecedented number of games available when choosing what games to purchase. However, a number of confounding issues around the emergent content of games and the subjective nature of game reviewing makes it difficult to relate what kinds of experiences a given game will facilitate. In this study, we surveyed game players in order to find their game platform and acquisition preferences; strategies and experiences when choosing games; and attitudes towards classification systems. Our findings suggest that players find it difficult to choose what games to purchase, and that existing classification systems are mostly only beneficial when choosing games for minors.

The field of technological behavioural addictions is moving towards specific problems (i.e., gaming disorder). However, more evidence of generalised versus specific Internet use-related addiction problems (generalised pathological Internet use (GPIU) vs. specific pathological Internet use (SPIU)) is still needed. This mixed methods study aimed to disentangle GPIU from SPIU. A partially mixed sequential equal status study design (QUAN→QUAL) was undertaken. First, through an online survey, which adapted the compulsive Internet use scale (CIUS) for three types of problems (i.e., generalised Internet use, and specific online gaming and social networking). Second, potential problem users’ perceptions of the evolution of these problems (aetiology, development, consequences, and factors) were ascertained, through semi-structured interviews, together with their opinion on present Internet gaming disorder (IGD) criteria adapted to each problem studied. Findings showed the CIUS remains valid and reliable for GPIU and SPIUs examined; a prevalence between 10.8% and 37.4% was estimated for potential at-risk problem gamers and Internet users, respectively, who reported their preference for maintaining their virtual lives. Half of the sample had a risk of a unique or mixed profile of these problems. Moreover, device patterns, gender, and age issues emerged, such as problem gamers being proportionally equal male and female young or middle-aged adults. GPIU was highly associated with problem social networking use, and weakly with problematic gaming, but both SPIUs were independent. Concerning addictive symptoms, salience, deception, and tolerance required redefinition, especially for SPIUs, while better-valued IGD criteria applied to GPIU and SPIUs were: Risk relationships or opportunities, give up other activities, withdrawal, and continue despite problems. Thus, although problems studied are present as risk behaviours, SPIUs seem to cover the addictive symptomatology in those categorised as potential problem users, online gaming being the most severe behavioural addiction problem.

Rodd et al. (2016) report that recreational rowers’ acquisition of sport-related terminology affected their interpretation of words that have both rowing-related and non-rowing-related meanings (e.g., crab ). The extent to which the rowing- and non-rowing-related meanings were accessible to the participants depended on experiential factors, such as how long the participant had been a rower, and how long it had been since they last rowed. We present two experiments that attempt to replicate these findings with another group of hobbyists, namely video game players. Experiment 1 examined the differences in word meaning choice between gamers and non-gamers. Participation in video-gaming lead to participants generating more gaming-related word meanings in a word association task. Experiment 2 further examined the effects of video gaming experience on the lexical representation of gaming-related words. Participants who had spent more years as gamers were more likely to produce gaming-related word meanings in a word association task. The effect of time spent gaming was no longer significant when we took into account whether the participant engaged with video-game related media (such as YouTube channels or gaming-related message boards). This finding helps us to refine our understanding of the results reported by Rodd et al. (2016), suggesting that it may not be the time spent in an activity that affects the interpretation of ambiguous words, but rather the specific exposure to activity-related vocabulary.

In this paper, we argue that current research on games in language education, predominantly framed as “digital game‐based language learning” (DGBLL), is lacking details regarding the role of teachers, or more precisely, the verbalization of the pedagogical underpinnings, scaffolds, and techniques teachers use to successfully integrate games and play in their teaching contexts. Thus, we propose a new direction of research that emphasizes the importance of teachers in game‐based language learning and argue for the necessity of an inclusive field of inquiry that is open to the diverse instantiations of games and play which exist outside the current scope of DGBLL. This new field places teachers and a deeper consideration of the connections between play and learning at the center of an approach to studying the intersection and implementation of games and language teaching. We present three “ludic language pedagogy” (LLP) studies which demonstrate what teaching with and around games looks like. Finally, we propose numerous avenues of further inquiry for teachers and researchers to advance the field of LLP. The Challenge Research on game use in language learning is narrowly focused on game design and games as stand‐alone learning environments. Few studies have investigated the role and impact of teachers in this field. Thus, we explore why teachers have been left out, why they are needed, and what teaching with games looks like.