We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Play seriously: Effectiveness of serious games and their features in motor rehabilitation. A meta-analysis.
NeuroRehabilitation 2017
BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of serious games (SGs) and their various features is inconsistent in the motor rehabilitation field, which makes evidence based development of SGs a rare practice.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of SGs in motor rehabilitation for upper limb and movement/balance and to test the potential moderating role of SGs features like feedback, activities, characters and background.
METHODS: We ran a meta-analysis including 61 studies reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials (CTs) or case series designs in which at least one intervention for motor rehabilitation included the use of SGs as standalone or in combination.
RESULTS: There was an overall moderate effect of SGs on motor indices, d = 0.59, [95% CI, 0.48, 0.71], p < 0.001. Regarding the game features, only two out of 17 moderators were statistically different in terms of effect sizes: type of activity (combination of group with individual activities had the highest effects), and realism of the scenario (fantasy scenarios had the highest effects).
CONCLUSIONS: While we showed that SGs are more effective in improving motor upper limb and movement/balance functions compared to conventional rehabilitation, there were no consistent differences between various game features in their contribution to effects. Further research should systematically investigate SGs features that might have added value in improving effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of SGs in motor rehabilitation for upper limb and movement/balance and to test the potential moderating role of SGs features like feedback, activities, characters and background.
METHODS: We ran a meta-analysis including 61 studies reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials (CTs) or case series designs in which at least one intervention for motor rehabilitation included the use of SGs as standalone or in combination.
RESULTS: There was an overall moderate effect of SGs on motor indices, d = 0.59, [95% CI, 0.48, 0.71], p < 0.001. Regarding the game features, only two out of 17 moderators were statistically different in terms of effect sizes: type of activity (combination of group with individual activities had the highest effects), and realism of the scenario (fantasy scenarios had the highest effects).
CONCLUSIONS: While we showed that SGs are more effective in improving motor upper limb and movement/balance functions compared to conventional rehabilitation, there were no consistent differences between various game features in their contribution to effects. Further research should systematically investigate SGs features that might have added value in improving effectiveness.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app