Cited by 95Educational Games and GamificationDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Integrating Health Behavior Theory and Design Elements in Serious Games

Open access
Cheek, Colleen, Fleming, Theresa, Lucassen, Mathijs FG, Bridgman, Heather, Stasiak, Karolina, Shepherd, Matthew, Orpin, Peter·2015·JMIR Mental Health

Abstract

Background: Internet interventions for improving health and well-being have the potential to reach many people and fill gaps in service provision. Serious gaming interfaces provide opportunities to optimize user adherence and impact. Health interventions based in theory and evidence and tailored to psychological constructs have been found to be more effective to promote behavior change. Defining the design elements which engage users and help them to meet their goals can contribute to better informed serious games. Objective: To elucidate design elements important in SPARX, a serious game for adolescents with depression, from a user-centered perspective. Methods: We proposed a model based on an established theory of health behavior change and practical features of serious game design to organize ideas and rationale. We analyzed data from 5 studies comprising a total of 22 focus groups and 66 semistructured interviews conducted with youth and families in New Zealand and Australia who had viewed or used SPARX. User perceptions of the game were applied to this framework. Results: A coherent framework was established using the three constructs of self-determination theory (SDT), autonomy, competence, and relatedness, to organize user perceptions and design elements within four areas important in design: computer game, accessibility, working alliance, and learning in immersion. User perceptions mapped well to the framework, which may assist developers in understanding the context of user needs. By mapping these elements against the constructs of SDT, we were able to propose a sound theoretical base for the model. Conclusions: This study’s method allowed for the articulation of design elements in a serious game from a user-centered perspective within a coherent overarching framework. The framework can be used to deliberately incorporate serious game design elements that support a user’s sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, key constructs which have been found to mediate motivation at all stages of the change process. The resulting model introduces promising avenues for future exploration. Involving users in program design remains an imperative if serious games are to be fit for purpose.

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/mental.4133

Cites

53 of 53 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?

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. [41]Hunicke R LeBlanc M Zubek R MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research Proceedings of the nineteenth national conference on Artificial Intelligence 2004 Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Conference 2004 San Jose
  2. [43]Quick J Atkinson R Lin L Confirming the taxonomy of video game enjoyment Games, Learning, Society 8.0 2013 Madison, WI ETC Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheek, C., Fleming, T., Lucassen, M. F., Bridgman, H., Stasiak, K., Shepherd, M., & Orpin, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Cheek, Colleen
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2015-04-21
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
e11
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102505751
Cited by
95
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
21.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Tasmania
  • University of Auckland
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
serious games, SPARX, adolescent depression, self-determination theory, game elements, user-centered design, health behavior change, autonomy, competence, relatedness, motivation, online intervention, user perception, therapeutic relationship, immersion, accessibility

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