Cited by 120Digital Mental Health InterventionsEducational Games and GamificationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 44 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Juegos serios para el tratamiento o la prevención de la depresión: una revisión sistemática

Open access

Abstract

Serious games (computerised interventions which utilise gaming for serious purposes) have been shown to support improved outcomes in several health conditions. We aimed to review evidence regarding serious games for depression. We undertook electronic searches of PsycInfo, EMBASE and Medline, using terms relevant to computer games and depression. We included fulltext articles published in English in peer-reviewed literature since 2000, where the intervention was designed to treat or prevent depression and which included pre-and post-intervention measurement of depression. Nine studies relating to a total of six interventions met inclusion criteria. Most studies were small and were carried out by the developers of the programs. All were tested with young people (ages between 9 and 25 years). Most reported promising results with some positive impact on depression although one universal program had mixed results. Serious gaming interventions show promise for depression, however evidence is currently very limited.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review identified nine studies of six serious-game interventions for depression, almost all in young people aged 9–25 years. Most reported promising symptom improvements and adherence, but the evidence base is small, heterogeneous, and largely produced by intervention developers.

Key findings

  • Nine studies relating to six interventions met inclusion criteria; most were small, and all were tested with young people aged 9–25 years.
  • In the largest RCT, SPARX was as effective as treatment as usual on clinician-rated and self-report depression measures, with significantly higher remission rates for SPARX (43.7%) than treatment as usual (26.4%) (p=.030).
  • In another SPARX RCT versus waitlist, remission rates were significantly higher for SPARX (78.9%) than waitlist (36.4%) (p=.004).
  • The Journey showed significantly greater reductions in clinician-rated depression than an attention placebo (mean change intervention group = 17.6, CI = 14.13–21.00; attention placebo = 6.06, CI = 2.01–10.02; F(1,27)=20.6; p<.001), but not on self-report depression.
  • Adherence was promising where reported: 85% completed all Think Feel Do modules; 60–90% completed all seven SPARX modules; 94% completed all modules of The Journey. ReachOutCentral showed no significant pre-to-post improvement in depression symptoms on the K10, though resiliency improved for females.

Methods

  • Systematic review with electronic searches of PsycInfo, Medline, and EMBASE from inception to 21 June 2014, using terms for computer games and depression.
  • Eligible studies were English-language peer-reviewed articles published after 2000, any design (RCT, CCT, or open trial), delivered online/digitally, using gaming as an integral and primary method, and reporting pre- and post-intervention depression measurement.
  • Searches retrieved 2,137 publications; 43 studies were interrogated for inclusion, and 9 studies relating to 6 interventions were included. Data were extracted by six authors and checked by a seventh; heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.

Limitations

  • The paper states that studies were generally small, interventions were heterogeneous, and most were carried out by persons involved in intervention development; these limitations precluded meaningful data synthesis.
  • The paper states that all included interventions focused on children, adolescents, or young people (aged 9–25 years), that program descriptions were limited, and that only peer-reviewed literature was reviewed.
  • Evident from the text: only one RCT had a large sample (n=187), most other trials had fewer than 34 participants, several programs were CD-ROM-based and not smartphone-based, and most were not publicly available outside research settings.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5944/rppc.vol.19.num.3.2014.13904

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 44 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 79 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 23
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
45 of 45
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A large and increasing proportion of internet access is via smartphones.

    “even though a large and increasing proportion of internet access is via smartphones.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    CD-ROMs are rapidly dating and cannot be utilised on many devices.

    “The CD-ROM is rapidly dating and cannot be utilised on many devices.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Games are now popular among many age groups.

    “While young people have led the uptake of computerised games, games are now popular among many age groups.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Young people have led the uptake of computerised games.

    “While young people have led the uptake of computerised games, games are now popular among many age groups.”
4 of 4

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?

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.

  • Consistentz = -2.09reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .037

    “(Z=-2.09, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(2, 23) = 9.39reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(2,23)=9.39, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 264) = 11.89reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,264)=11.89, p = .00”

  • ConsistentF(1, 177) = 15.51reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,177)=15.51, p = .00”

4 of 4

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.

  • SPARX RADS-II result is called significant despite p=.052

    Major

    The text says SPARX produced a significantly greater reduction on the RADS-II, but Table 2 gives p=.052 for that result, above the .05 significance threshold used elsewhere in the paper.

  • Only four controlled trials had sample sizes below 34

    Minor

    Table 1 lists the controlled-trial sample sizes as 22, 20, 187, 32, 34 and 30. Four, not five, are below 34; The Journey trial had exactly 34 participants.

  • Rainbow SPARX open trial had 21 participants, not fewer than 21

    Minor

    The text says every open trial other than ReachOutCentral had fewer than 21 participants, whereas Table 1 lists 21 for the Rainbow SPARX open trial.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Wittchen, H.-U., & Jacobi, F. (2005). Size and burden of mental disorders in europe-a critical review and a p p r a i s a l o f 2 7 s t u d i e s . E u r o p e a n Neuropsychopharmacology, 15, 357-376.
  2. Wittgenstein, L., & Anscombe, G. (2009). Philosophical investigations: The German text with an English translation. P. Hacker & J. Schulte. Oxford UK: Wiley- Blackwell.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–120 of 120

Metadata

Authors
Fleming, T. M., Cheek, C., Merry, S. N., Thabrew, H., Bridgman, H., Stasiak, K., Shepherd, M., Perry, Y., & Hetrick, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica
Published
2015-01-15
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
227
ISSN
  • 1136-5420 (ISSN-L)
  • 2254-6057
OpenAlex
W104801597
Cited by
120
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
18.34
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
serious games, depression, depression treatment, depression prevention, youth, mental health interventions

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 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (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