The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 143 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A meta-analysis of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion
Open accessAbstract
Several systematic reviews have described health-promoting effects of serious games but so far no meta-analysis has been reported. This paper presents a meta-analysis of 54 serious digital game studies for healthy lifestyle promotion, in which we investigated the overall effectiveness of serious digital games on healthy lifestyle promotion outcomes and the role of theoretically and clinically important moderators. Findings showed serious games have small positive effects on healthy lifestyles (g=0.260, 95% CI 0.148; 0.373) and their determinants (g=0.334, 95% CI 0.260; 0.407), especially for knowledge. Effects on clinical outcomes were significant, but much smaller (g=0.079, 95% CI 0.038; 0.120). Long-term effects were maintained for all outcomes except for behavior. Serious games are best individually tailored to both socio-demographic and change need information, and benefit from a strong focus on game theories or a dual theoretical foundation in both behavioral prediction and game theories. They can be effective either as a stand-alone or multi-component programs, and appeal to populations regardless of age and gender. Given that effects of games remain heterogeneous, further exploration of which game features create larger effects are needed.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This first meta-analysis of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion found small positive effects on behavior and its determinants and very small effects on clinical outcomes. Effects were largest for knowledge, maintained at follow-up except for behavior, and moderated by tailoring and theoretical basis.
Key findings
- Across 54 papers and 61 game evaluations, serious games improved healthy lifestyle behavior (g=0.260, 95% CI 0.148–0.373, n=314,790, k=21) and behavioral determinants (g=0.334, 95% CI 0.260–0.407, n=19,934, k=50); clinical outcomes had a very small significant effect (g=0.079, 95% CI 0.038–0.120, n=9,367, k=10).
- At second post-test, behavior effects were smaller and failed to reach significance (p=.07), while determinants and clinical outcomes remained significant and of similar magnitude; knowledge had the largest determinant effects and approximated a moderate effect at follow-up.
- Tailoring was a significant moderator only for determinants: games tailored to both socio-demographic and change-need information had higher effects than games tailored only to change needs/stages of adoption. A dual theoretical foundation in game-based learning and behavioral prediction theories related to higher determinant effects than behavioral prediction theories alone.
- Implementation method, age, gender, and study quality were not significant moderators. Heterogeneity was high for behavior and determinants, and publication bias could not be ruled out for determinants (Egger’s test t(48)=6.042, p<.001; trim-and-fill adjusted g=0.179, 95% CI 0.104–0.254).
Methods
- Systematic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Cinahl, and PsycInfo through July 2013, plus hand-searching and author contact; 7,192 hits yielded 54 included papers, assessing 52 games in 61 evaluations.
- Random-effects Hedges’ g was used, with mixed-effects moderator analyses, Cochran’s Q and I² for heterogeneity, meta-regression for continuous moderators, and sensitivity analyses for outliers, pre-test–post-test correlations, and publication bias.
- Primary outcomes were behavior, knowledge, behavioral intentions, perceived barriers, skills, attitudes, subjective norm, and self-efficacy; clinical outcomes were secondary. Study quality was assessed with EPHPP; interrater reliability was ICC=0.90 for coding and ICC=0.98 for quality.
Limitations
- Stated: “no evidence for an effect” does not equal “evidence for no effect”; some analyses were likely underpowered (e.g., mental health, social behavior, clinical outcomes). Other factors such as game features were not included and may explain heterogeneity. Publication bias is a concern, and analyses were limited by information available in manuscripts and from researchers. The review included various health behaviors that may be difficult to compare.
- Evident from the text: heterogeneity was high for behavior and determinants; some moderator categories had fewer than 3 studies and were not analyzed (e.g., tailoring by socio-demographic information only); only one game for the elderly was included, and subjective norms were measured in only one study.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
45 Own result · 26 Not checked yet · 10 No basis given · 9 Own method · 6 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was, however, the opposite at second post-test: here the greater the time elapsed until post-test measurement, the smaller the effect size for behavior”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no significant differences in average effect size on behavior nor on its determinants or clinical outcome by health domain.”
- Also stated in: § Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles · plain
“No significant heterogeneity was observed between games’ effects in different health domains.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
- Also stated in: § Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and their determinants (g=0.334, 95% CI 0.260; 0.407), especially for knowledge.”
- Also stated in: § Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles · plain
“For behavioral determinants, average effect size was similarly small (g=0.334 (95% CI 0.260; 0.407), n=19934, k=50)”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“improved antecedents that determine adoption (g=0.334, 95% CI 0.260; 0.407)”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Abstract
plaindirectn = 19,934- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
- Also stated in: § Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The elapsed time between the last time the game was played and when the outcome was measured, was a significant moderator in the games’ effects, but only for behavior. More specifically, the greater the amount of time between the last game play and first post-test for behavior, the larger the effect size (Table 8).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This inverse relation between time and effect was also true for behavioral determinants (Table 8).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the other study characteristics were significant moderators in the average effects on behavior, determinants or clinical outcomes.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For behavioral determinants, games tailored only by change needs or stages of adoption had a lower effect size than games which were not tailored or tailored to both socio-demographics and change needs.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation method was not a significant moderator of game effectiveness for either behavior, determinants or clinical outcomes (Table 5–7).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For behavior, games evaluated in a post-test only control groups design had a lower average effect size (borderline significant) than games evaluated in other study designs (Table 5).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our review, effects on self-efficacy were unexpectedly small.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 24
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using Duval’s and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill approach to impute missing studies to the left of the mean, adjusted average g for behavioral determinants was reduced to g=0.179 (95% CI 0.104; 0.254) but remained significant.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among specific behavioral determinants, the largest effects were found for improvement in knowledge and attitudes; however, all effect sizes were small.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The type of theoretical foundation significantly affected effectiveness for behavioral determinants, but not for behavior or clinical outcomes (Table 5–7).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither the average age of participants nor the percentage of women in the sample was a significant moderator on game effectiveness on behavior, determinants or clinical outcomes (note: only one game for the elderly was included) (Table 8).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Funnel plot and Egger’s Test (t(48)=6.042, p<.001) indicated publication bias could not be ruled out for effects on behavioral determinants with a tendency for smaller published studies to report higher effect sizes.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individual tailoring was only a significant moderator for the effects on behavioral determinants, but not for behavior or clinical outcomes (Table 5–7).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both forms of implementation had significant average effect sizes for behavioral determinants and clinical outcomes. Average effects on behavior of stand-alone games however showed only a trend to significance.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Games based purely on behavioral prediction theories had the lowest average effect size. Their effects were however still significant (Table 6).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of the study did not significantly affect the effectiveness for behavior, determinants or clinical outcomes (Table 5–7).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For effects on behavior (t(19)=1.51, p=0.07) and on clinical outcomes (t(8)=0.762, p=0.233), Egger’s Test on publication bias was not significant.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was high heterogeneity between games’ effects for behavior and behavioral determinants, both at first post-test and at follow-up test, but not for clinical outcomes.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For behavioral determinants and clinical outcomes, average effect size at second post-test measurement was significant and of similar magnitude as at first post-measurement (Table 3).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Long-term effects were maintained for all outcomes except for behavior.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Average effect size for behavior at second post-test measurement was smaller than at first post-intervention measurement and failed to reach significance (p=.07).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Although effects at follow-up measurement were significant and positive for most outcomes, they were smaller than at the immediate post-measurement, and failed to reach significance for behavior.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At second post-test, average effect size remained highest for knowledge and approximated a moderate effect size, but average effects were smaller for other behavioral determinants compared to first post-measurement (with the exception of subjective norms, measured in only one study) (Table 4).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As yet, no meta-analysis of serious games for healthy lifestyle promotion has been reported.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often game studies briefly mentioned which theoretical foundation was used, but not how theoretical techniques were applied to address the target outcome.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They were effective either as a stand-alone or multi-component program”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting a curvilinear relation, in which a minimal time is needed to practice the behavior at first post-test to have effects, but where a longer follow-up time showed smaller effects on behavior.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Influence of study, sample and game characteristics as moderators of game effectiveness
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“as was the case for self-efficacy, which is another determinant with a strong association with behavior change (Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, Gottlieb, & Fernàndez 2011).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, Gottlieb, & Fernàndez 2011
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Games are thought to provide a good medium for increasing self-efficacy as they offer the opportunity for enactive experience in a safe environment, without real-life consequences to making wrong decisions (Peng 2008;Prensky 2007).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peng 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Prensky 2007
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many other game characteristics (e.g. use of a narrative, challenge in the game, co-design, scaffolding levels) (Kapp 2012;Lu, Baranowski, Thompson, & Buday 2012) may influence game effectiveness and may be applied differently in stand-alone or multi-component games.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kapp 2012
- Not checked yetcites Lu, Baranowski, Thompson, & Buday 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other studies have indeed reported that the terminology of theories is not used in a consistent manner across interventions and that one term may be used to represent different techniques, as well as that different labels may be used for the same technique (Michie et al. 2011a).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Michie et al. 2011a
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interpretation and application of theories may therefore have been different across game studies.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It appeared insufficient to tailor games only to behavioral change needs, instead games are best tailored by both socio-demographic information (e.g. age, gender, body frame) and behavioral change needs (e.g. current level of lifestyle adoption, already acquired knowledge, stages of change, or motivation).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For one study (Jantz et al. 2002) the effect size of one outcome exceeded the outlier threshold; this outcome was hence removed from the analyses.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jantz et al. 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For computer-tailored interventions, the use of self-regulation theories has been recommended to improve effectiveness (Lustria, Cortese, Noar, & Glueckauf 2009).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lustria, Cortese, Noar, & Glueckauf 2009 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Methods used in non-game healthy lifestyle interventions to maintain a long-term effect on behavior were providing reinforcement throughout follow-up, having booster sessions, sending tailored reminders, using self-regulation and anticipatory coping techniques to deal with potential relapse, integrating Motivational Interviewing techniques and creating healthy-behavior-facilitating changes in the”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For games, dynamic tailoring has been recommended based on the difficulty level the player can master (e.g. via providing hints when the challenge is too hard), to ensure flow and to provide all players with an optimal level of challenge (Charles et al. 2005;Wilson et al. 2009).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Charles et al. 2005
- Not checked yetcites Wilson et al. 2009 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“while leisure games are played 7 hours per week on average (Boyle, Connolly, Hainey, & Boyle 2012).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boyle, Connolly, Hainey, & Boyle 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These were coded separately in our meta-analyses, singling out effect of intervention duration versus duration until measurement.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“They reported that interventions lasting fewer than 12 weeks more often achieved their objectives than interventions lasting longer.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Primack, Carroll, McNamara, Klem, King, Rich, Chan, & Nayak 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Decreasing risky behavior may be harder to achieve than increasing health-promoting behavior (Adriaanse et al. 2011).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adriaanse et al. 2011 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our meta-analysis did not distinguish between reducing unhealthy behavior or increasing healthy actions.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These features were not included here.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lastly, this review included various types of health behaviors, which may be difficult to compare.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, publication bias is always a concern: reported effect sizes may be overestimated (e.g. behavioral determinants).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analyses were furthermore limited by the information available in the manuscripts and that additionally obtained from the researchers.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The pre-test-post-test correlation is 0.50 for effect size calculation.
“pre-test-post-test correlations set lower (0.20) and higher (0.80) than the standard assumption of 0.50”
The paper relies on this without support.
The theoretical foundation categories coded from the primary studies accurately represent the theories actually used in those games.
“Often game studies briefly mentioned which theoretical foundation was used, but not how theoretical techniques were applied to address the target outcome.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The most comparable serious games for health meta-analysis in terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria is DeSmet et al. (2014), which found 53 studies published between 1989 and 2013 (avg. 2 studies/year).”
From Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature (2016) · cites this paper as DeSmet et al. (2014)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Although the scientific evaluation of serious games precludes making conclusive statements about their impact on “real-world” behaviors, several controlled trials of serious games have shown to affect these behaviors in diverse patient groups [42].”
In the citing paper
“A zeitgeist has emerged in the medical and educational fields for applied or “serious” games as tools for enhancing medical care [58-61].”
From Use of the Principles of Design Thinking to Address Limitations of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Youth: Viewpoint (2019) · cites this paper as [59]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Not confirmedt(19) = 1.51reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .147
“t(19)=1.51, p = .07”
- Not confirmedt(8) = 0.762reported p = .233 · recomputed p = .468
“t(8)=0.762, p = .233”
- Consistentt(48) = 6.042reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(48)=6.042, p < .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Abstract
“Effects on clinical outcomes were significant, but much smaller (g=0.079, 95% CI 0.038; 0.120).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion > Results > Effectiveness of games in changing healthy lifestyles
“the average effect size on clinical outcomes was very small, but significant (g=0.079 (95% CI 0.039; 0.120), n=9367, k=10)”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 · Cited by 13,697 · cited 2×
“Other studies have indeed reported that the terminology of theories is not used in a consistent manner across interventions and that one term may be used to represent different techniques, as well as that different labels may be used for the same technique (Michie et al., 2011a).”
BackgroundMethodBorenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice,
(2002) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(02)00362-4 · Cited by 9,494
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695 · cited 1×
“Random-effects Hedges' g was applied to indicate effect size, correcting for small sample sizes (Hedges, 1981).”
MethodLopez, A. D., Mathers, C. D., Ezzati, M., Jamison, D. T., & Murray, C. J. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68770-9 · Cited by 5,630 · cited 1×
“…lifestyles comprise an array of potentially modifiable behaviors that can prevent a wide range of diseases, such as some cancers, cardiovascular diseases, stroke, dementia, mental illness, and diabetes (Fratiglioni et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2012; Lopez et al., 2006; Peel et al., 2005).”
BackgroundKapp, K. M. (2012) · Cited by 3,753
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026 · cited 1×
“Meta-regression (methods-of-moments procedure) was performed for continuous moderators (Thompson and Higgins, 2002), where the slope ( β ) and its p-value indicated the importance of this moderator in understanding linear changes in effect sizes.”
Method
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–428 of 428
Hybrid Serious Game for Cancer Prevention Through the Promotion of Healthy Living Habits
Oliveira, A. P. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94150-4_34
Stasolla, F., Zullo, A., Maniglio, R., Passaro, A., Gioia, M. D., Martini, E., Akbar, K., Dragone, M., & Curcio, E. (2025) · Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities · doi:10.1007/s10882-025-10022-y
Henriques, S., & Damásio, M. J. (2025) · Health & New Media Research · doi:10.22720/hnmr.2025.00066
Preliminary Results from a Systematic Review of Narrative Game-based Interventions for Mental Health
Devasia, N., Espinosa-Briones, J., & Kientz, J. A. (2025) · doi:10.26503/dl.v2025i3.2534 · Cited by 1
Digital Interventions for Public Health: A Systematic Planning Approach
Bruinsma, J., & Crutzen, R. (2025) · Springer series on epidemiology and public health · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90154-6_7
Cotardo, T., Otero, P., de Bruin, E. D., Blanco, V., Arrojo, M., Páramo, M., Otero, M. J. F., Torres, Á., & Vázquez, F. L. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14196873
“They are attractive, fun, can be used at home [22], and can overcome barriers of face-to-face programs (such as transportation).”
Castro, L. D. C. R. (2025) · Tsafiqui - Revista Científica en Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.29019/tsafiqui.v15i1.1470
Koch, A., Wyssen, A., Haupt, C. A., Hammelbeck, J., van Dorland, H. A., Flueck, C. E., Latzin, P., Saner, C. C. S., Jakob, J., Kaess, M., et al. (2025) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-09251-5
Dai, J., & Chow, K. K. N. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12408-1_10
Narrating illness through play: a multimodal analysis of That Dragon, Cancer
Ferreira, C. (2025) · Health & New Media Research · doi:10.22720/hnmr.2025.00262
Vugts, M. A. P., Joosen, M. C. W., Mert, A., Zedlitz, A. M. E. E., & Vrijhoef, H. J. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9739 · Cited by 13
“Serious games may combine small behavioral and clinical benefits with independent accessibility and standardized content of computer-based interventions as well as unique qualities for learning such as intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, positive affect, sense of presence, and meta-cognition [29,32-34].”
InfluentialLiu, R., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Lucas, G. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2635682
Guo, R.-L., & Sun, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1786916
“Through interactive works that respond to user choices and feed-back, digital art allows individuals to simulate real-life health decisions in low-risk environments (33).”
A Systematic Review of Narrative Game-based Interventions for Mental Health
Devasia, N., Espinosa-Briones, J., & Kientz, J. A. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3807448
“Despite being theorized as a mechanic with potential for increasing engagement and identification with the psychoeducation material provided by the game [39], this was rarely measured in any of the studies analyzed, either from the lens of narrative theory or motivational theories.”
Soares, A. P. D., da Silva, P. M., Lopes, R. A. A., et al. (2026) · Journal Health and Technology - JHT · doi:10.71328/jht.v8i2.72
Au, C.-Y., Liu, Y., Asinas, J. M., & Bhagat, A. A. S. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.100626
Andretta, V., Artefice, L., Mastrangelo, A., Santoro, E., Santella, B., Viciconte, M., Franci, G., & Cerrone, V. (2026) · Discover Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12982-026-02220-6 · Cited by 1
“Serious games refer to educational game-based tools specifically designed to achieve learning objectives and promote behavioral change through interactive engagement [9].”
Giesteira, B., & Souza, T. (2026) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26999-7_16
Barker, M. E., Jenner, S., Woods‐Townsend, K., Varkonyi-Sepp, J., Barrett, M., Bagust, L., Lovelock, D., Shaw, S., Coakley, P., Leonard, N., et al. (2025) · Programme Grants for Applied Research · doi:10.3310/gjmb4821 · Cited by 1
Hasan, S. I., Selvasingam, R. R., & Hairi, F. M. (2026) · Tobacco Induced Diseases · doi:10.18332/tid/214070 · Cited by 1
Forrest, A., Buchan, D. S., Sculthorpe, N. F., & Robinson, S. (2026) · BMC Digital Health · doi:10.1186/s44247-026-00290-9
“From the iterative co-design process, specific changes such as the inclusion of streaks and trophies to drive engagement, and the removal of potentially demotivating features like the leaderboard, reflects previous evidence that rewards based tools can enhance engagement among children [41, 42].”
Wrona, K. J., Albrecht, J., Krümmel, A., et al. (2026) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/83347
A Serious Game Development for Safety and Confidence with Powered Mobility Device: Empathy Phase
Latulippe, K., Auger, C., Plante, P., et al. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17790-2_45
Alemdar, D. K., Yalçın, O., İnal, S., Temuçin, M. N., & KILIÇ, T. (2026) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2026.109865
Health Literacy in Early Childhood
GÜNEŞ, L. C., & Durualp, E. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9087-0.ch012
Cavioni, V., Conte, E., & Ornaghi, V. (2026) · International Online Conference on Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/proceedings2026145013
Board game-based education for HIV prevention among rural older adults: a quasi-experimental study
Guo, J., Qi, Y., & Zhou, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1834731
Metadata
- Authors
- DeSmet, A., Van Ryckeghem, D., Compernolle, S., Baranowski, T., Thompson, D., Crombez, G., Poels, K., Van Lippevelde, W., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Baylor College of Medicine (US)
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- Corresponding author
- DeSmet, Ann
- ORCID
- Venue
- Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-12
- Volume
- 69
- Pages
- 95-107
- ISSN
- 0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4403732
- OpenAlex
- W2093118219
- Semantic Scholar
- 228e274dce3a3661790bf4291e9d5fe1681c2aca
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 143
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 5.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
- Keywords
- serious games, video games, healthy lifestyle promotion, health behavior change, game theory, knowledge outcomes, long-term effects, sociodemographic moderators, multicomponent intervention, game features
- MeSH terms
- Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Life Style, Male, Recreation, Health Behavior, Video Games
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
