Cited by 222Educational Games and GamificationPhysical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Gamification on Physical Activity: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access
Mazeas, Alexandre, Duclos, Martine, Pereira, Bruno, Chalabaev, Aïna·2022·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Gamification 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. Objective: The 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. Methods: A 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. Results: The 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). Conclusions: This 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/26779

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Gamification has been shown to improve the use of physical activity apps.

    “Gamification has been shown to improve the use of physical activity apps [37]”

    From System Usability Scale Benchmarking for Digital Health Apps: Meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results (Characteristics of Included Studies; page unavailable) say that most included studies used smartphone apps, and the Discussion (Conclusions; page unavailable) says gamified interventions improved daily physical activity compared with nongamified interventions such as apps. The paper does not show that gamification increased use of the apps themselves, such as how often people opened or continued using them. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [15]Koivisto J Hamari J Gamification of physical activity: a systematic literature review of comparison studies Proceedings of the 3rd International GamiFIN Conference 2019 3rd International GamiFIN Conference, GamiFIN 2019 April 8-10, 2019 Levi, Finland 106 17
  2. [43]Cohen J Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition) 1988 Hillsdale, NJ Laurence Erlbaum Associates

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mazeas, A., Duclos, M., Pereira, B., & Chalabaev, A.
Affiliations
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand (FR)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2022-01-04
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
e26779
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4205508774
Cited by
222
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 13
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie
  • Université Clermont-Auvergne
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
gamification, physical activity, sedentary behavior, gamified interventions, behavior change, physical inactivity, chronic disease, long-term sustainability, adolescents, adults, waitlist control, active control groups, generalizability across populations, effect size heterogeneity, publication bias, subgroup analysis, follow-up duration, dose-response relationship, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Gamification, Adolescent, Adult, Humans, Motor Activity, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sedentary Behavior

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.

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