Advertisement

Effects of Gamified Smartphone Applications on Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Published:December 07, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.10.005

      Introduction

      This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the impacts of standalone gamified smartphone application-delivered interventions on physical activity.

      Methods

      Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, and ACM Digital Library were searched for publications that were published between January 1, 2008 and August 31, 2021. Eligibility criteria were RCTs or single-arm pre-to-post interventions delivered by standalone gamified applications and targeting physical activity. Study-specific results were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis, with a standardized mean difference. Meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to determine the strength of the evidence.

      Results

      A total of 19 studies with 24 gamified applications were eligible, and 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Standalone gamified applications had a small-to-moderate effect on physical activity in both the between-group RCTs (n=12 applications, standardized mean difference=0.34, 95% CI=0.06, 0.62, I2=72%, p<0.01; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation: moderate) and the within-group pre-to-post interventions (n=18 applications, standardized mean difference=0.38, 95% CI=0.17, 0.59, I2=74%, p<0.01; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation: very low). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses sustained the main effects with lower heterogeneity (I2 of 31.0% and 47.8%, respectively).

      Discussion

      Using gamified smartphone applications as standalone interventions may increase physical activity. Future research could investigate the impacts of gamified applications on physical activity by isolating the role of specific single or clustered groups of application features.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Ekelund U
        • Tarp J
        • Steene-Johannessen J
        • et al.
        Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis.
        BMJ. 2019; 366: l4570https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4570
        • Bull FC
        • Al-Ansari SS
        • Biddle S
        • et al.
        World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.
        Br J Sports Med. 2020; 54: 1451-1462https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955
        • WHO
        Physical activity.
        WHO, Geneva, SwitzerlandAccessed November 26, 2021
        • Vandelanotte C
        • Müller AM
        • Short CE
        • et al.
        Past, present, and future of eHealth and mHealth research to improve physical activity and dietary behaviors.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016; 48 (219–228.e1)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2015.12.006
        • Bort-Roig J
        • Gilson ND
        • Puig-Ribera A
        • Contreras RS
        • Trost SG.
        Measuring and influencing physical activity with smartphone technology: a systematic review.
        Sports Med. 2014; 44: 671-686https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0142-5
        • Romeo A
        • Edney S
        • Plotnikoff R
        • et al.
        Can smartphone apps increase physical activity? Systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21: e12053https://doi.org/10.2196/12053
        • Tabak M
        • Dekker-van Weering M
        • van Dijk H
        • Vollenbroek-Hutten M.
        Promoting daily physical activity by means of mobile gaming: a review of the state of the art.
        Games Health J. 2015; 4: 460-469https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2015.0010
      1. Koivisto J, Hamari J. Gamification of physical activity: a systematic literature review of comparison studies. Proceedings of the 3rd International GamiFIN Conference. 2019 April 8–10; Levi, Finland: 106–117.

      2. Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference. 2011September 28–30; Tampere , Finland:9-15.

        • Xi N
        • Hamari J.
        Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction.
        Int J Inf Manag. 2019; 46: 210-221https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.002
        • Koivisto J
        • Hamari J.
        The rise of motivational information systems: a review of gamification research.
        Int J Inf Manag. 2019; 45: 191-210https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013
        • Werbach K
        • Hunter D.
        For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business.
        Wharton Digital Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ2012
        • King D
        • Greaves F
        • Exeter C
        • Darzi A.
        ‘Gamification’: influencing health behaviours with games.
        J R Soc Med. 2013; 106: 76-78https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076813480996
        • Lister C
        • West JH
        • Cannon B
        • Sax T
        • Brodegard D.
        Just a fad? Gamification in health and fitness apps.
        JMIR Serious Games. 2014; 2: e9https://doi.org/10.2196/games.3413
        • Edwards EA
        • Lumsden J
        • Rivas C
        • et al.
        Gamification for health promotion: systematic review of behaviour change techniques in smartphone apps.
        BMJ Open. 2016; 6e012447https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012447
        • Cotton V
        • Patel MS.
        Gamification use and design in popular health and fitness mobile applications.
        Am J Health Promot. 2019; 33: 448-451https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117118790394
        • González-González C
        • del Río NG
        • Navarro-Adelantado V.
        Exploring the benefits of using gamification and videogames for physical exercise: a review of state of art.
        IJIMAI. 2018; 5: 46-52https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2018.03.005
        • Johnson D
        • Deterding S
        • Kuhn KA
        • Staneva A
        • Stoyanov S
        • Hides L.
        Gamification for health and wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature.
        Internet Interv. 2016; 6: 89-106https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.002
        • Shcherbina A
        • Hershman SG
        • Lazzeroni L
        • et al.
        The effect of digital physical activity interventions on daily step count: a randomised controlled crossover substudy of the MyHeart Counts Cardiovascular Health Study.
        Lancet Digit Health. 2019; 1: e344-e352https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30129-3
        • Page MJ
        • McKenzie JE
        • Bossuyt PM
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372: n71https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
      3. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook

        • Michie S
        • Richardson M
        • Johnston M
        • et al.
        The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions.
        Ann Behav Med. 2013; 46: 81-95https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
        • Laranjo L
        • Ding D
        • Heleno B
        • et al.
        Do smartphone applications and activity trackers increase physical activity in adults? Systematic review, meta-analysis and metaregression.
        Br J Sports Med. 2021; 55: 422-432https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102892
        • King AC
        • Hekler EB
        • Grieco LA
        • et al.
        Effects of three motivationally targeted mobile device applications on initial physical activity and sedentary behavior change in midlife and older adults: a randomized trial [published correction appears in PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0160113].
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0156370https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156370
        • Leinonen AM
        • Pyky R
        • Ahola R
        • et al.
        Feasibility of gamified mobile service aimed at physical activation in young men: population-based randomized controlled study (MOPO).
        JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2017; 5: e146https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6675
        • Schade SA
        • Mahoney JM
        • Spotts AV
        • Greenauer N
        • Veerabhadrappa P.
        Pokémon Go did not increase step count or distance travelled among college students.
        Hum Mov. 2020; 21: 64-70https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2020.89916
        • Santos LHO
        • Okamoto K
        • Otsuki R
        • et al.
        Promoting physical activity in Japanese older adults using a social pervasive game: randomized controlled trial.
        JMIR Serious Games. 2021; 9: e16458https://doi.org/10.2196/16458
        • Sterne JAC
        • Savović J
        • Page MJ
        • et al.
        RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
        • Sterne JAC
        • Hernán MA
        • Reeves BC
        • et al.
        ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
        BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
        • Murad MH
        • Wang Z
        • Chu H
        • Lin L.
        When continuous outcomes are measured using different scales: guide for meta-analysis and interpretation.
        BMJ. 2019; 364: k4817https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4817
        • Egger M
        • Smith DG
        • Schneider M
        • Minder C
        Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.
        BMJ. 1997; 315: 629-634https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
        • Peters JL
        • Sutton AJ
        • Jones DR
        • Abrams KR
        • Rushton L.
        Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 991-996https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
        • Guyatt G
        • Oxman AD
        • Akl EA
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 383-394https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
        • Schwarzer G.
        Meta: an R package for meta-analysis.
        R News. 2007; 7 (Accessed October 27, 2021): 40-45
        • Richardson M
        • Garner P
        • Donegan S.
        Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: a tutorial.
        Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2019; 7: 192-198https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2018.05.005
        • Höchsmann C
        • Müller O
        • Ambühl M
        • et al.
        Novel smartphone game improves physical activity behavior in type 2 diabetes.
        Am J Prev Med. 2019; 57: 41-50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.02.017
        • Haque MS
        • Kangas M
        • Jämsä T.
        A persuasive mHealth behavioral change intervention for promoting physical activity in the workplace: feasibility randomized controlled trial.
        JMIR Form Res. 2020; 4: e15083https://doi.org/10.2196/15083
        • Guyatt GH
        • Oxman AD
        • Vist G
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias).
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 407-415https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017
        • Mamede A
        • Noordzij G
        • Jongerling J
        • Snijders M
        • Schop-Etman A
        • Denktas S.
        Combining web-based gamification and physical nudges with an app (MoveMore) to promote walking breaks and reduce sedentary behavior of office workers: field study.
        J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23: e19875https://doi.org/10.2196/19875
        • Wong RSM
        • Yu EYT
        • Wong TW
        • et al.
        Development and pilot evaluation of a mobile app on parent–child exercises to improve physical activity and psychosocial outcomes of Hong Kong Chinese children.
        BMC Public Health. 2020; 20: 1544https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09655-9
        • Tabak M
        • de Vette F
        • van Dijk H
        • Vollenbroek-Hutten M.
        A game-based, physical activity coaching application for older adults: design approach and user experience in daily life.
        Games Health J. 2020; 9: 215-226https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2018.0163
        • Feng W
        • Tu R
        • Hsieh P.
        Can gamification increases consumers' engagement in fitness apps? The moderating role of commensurability of the game elements.
        J Retail Consum Serv. 2020; 57102229https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102229
        • Edney SM
        • Olds TS
        • Ryan JC
        • et al.
        A social networking and gamified app to increase physical activity: cluster RCT.
        Am J Prev Med. 2020; 58: e51-e62https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.009
        • Zhang J
        • Jemmott Iii JB
        Mobile app-based small-group physical activity intervention for young African American women: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
        Prev Sci. 2019; 20: 863-872https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01006-4
        • Tu R
        • Hsieh P
        • Feng W.
        Walking for fun or for “likes”? The impacts of different gamification orientations of fitness apps on consumers’ physical activities.
        Sport Manag Rev. 2019; 22: 682-693https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.10.005
        • Gremaud AL
        • Carr LJ
        • Simmering JE
        • et al.
        Gamifying accelerometer use increases physical activity levels of sedentary office workers.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7e007735https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.007735
        • Paul L
        • Wyke S
        • Brewster S
        • et al.
        Increasing physical activity in stroke survivors using STARFISH, an interactive mobile phone application: a pilot study.
        Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016; 23: 170-177https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2015.1122266
        • Maher C
        • Ferguson M
        • Vandelanotte C
        • et al.
        A web-based, social networking physical activity intervention for insufficiently active adults delivered via Facebook app: randomized controlled trial.
        J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17: e174https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4086
        • Garde A
        • Umedaly A
        • Abulnaga SM
        • et al.
        Assessment of a mobile game (“MobileKids Monster Manor”) to promote physical activity among children.
        Games Health J. 2015; 4: 149-158https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2014.0095
        • Direito A
        • Jiang Y
        • Whittaker R
        • Maddison R.
        Apps for IMproving FITness and increasing physical activity among young people: the AIMFIT pragmatic randomized controlled trial.
        J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17: e210https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4568
        • Zuckerman O
        • Gal-Oz A.
        Deconstructing gamification: evaluating the effectiveness of continuous measurement, virtual rewards, and social comparison for promoting physical activity.
        Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2014; 18: 1705-1719https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0783-2
        • Mazéas A
        • Duclos M
        • Pereira B
        • Chalabaev A.
        Does gamification improve physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Med Internet Res. 2021; https://doi.org/10.31236/osf.io/n8sur
        • Khamzina M
        • Parab KV
        • An R
        • Bullard T
        • Grigsby-Toussaint DS.
        Impact of Pokémon Go on physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis [published correction appears in Am J Prev Med. 2020 May;58(5):756].
        Am J Prev Med. 2020; 58: 270-282https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.005
        • Hanson S
        • Jones A.
        Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 710-715https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094157
        • Stamatakis E
        • Kelly P
        • Strain T
        • Murtagh EM
        • Ding D
        • Murphy MH.
        Self-rated walking pace and all-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 50 225 walkers from 11 population British cohorts.
        Br J Sports Med. 2018; 52: 761-768https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098677
        • Sardi L
        • Idri A
        • Fernández-Alemán JL
        A systematic review of gamification in e-health.
        J Biomed Inform. 2017; 71: 31-48https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.05.011
        • Cheng VWS
        • Davenport T
        • Johnson D
        • Vella K
        • Hickie IB.
        Gamification in apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being: systematic review.
        JMIR Ment Health. 2019; 6: e13717https://doi.org/10.2196/13717
        • Lewis ZH
        • Swartz MC
        • Lyons EJ.
        What's the point?: a review of reward systems implemented in gamification interventions.
        Games Health J. 2016; 5: 93-99https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2015.0078
        • Tong HL
        • Laranjo L.
        The use of social features in mobile health interventions to promote physical activity: a systematic review.
        NPJ Digit Med. 2018; 1: 43https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-018-0051-3
        • Nicholson S.
        A recipe for meaningful gamification.
        in: Reiners T Wood L Gamification in Education and Business. Springer, Cham, Switzerland2015: 1-20https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1
        • Caison AL
        • Bulman D
        • Pai S
        • Neville D.
        Exploring the technology readiness of nursing and medical students at a Canadian university.
        J Interprof Care. 2008; 22: 283-294https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820802061809
        • Cai Z
        • Fan X
        • Du J.
        Gender and attitudes toward technology use: a meta-analysis.
        Comput Educ. 2017; 105: 1-13https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
        • Koivisto J
        • Hamari J.
        Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification.
        Comput Hum Behav. 2014; 35: 179-188https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007
        • Wang HY
        • Wang YS.
        Gender differences in the perception and acceptance of online games.
        Br J Educ Technol. 2008; 39: 787-806https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00773.x
        • WHO
        Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world.
        WHO, Geneva, Switzerland2018 (Accessed November 26, 2021.) (Accessed November 26, 2021.)