背景:对旨在增加身体活动(PA)的数字游戏的研究,也称为运动游戏或主动视频游戏(AVG),在过去的20年里激增。因此,这一领域的文献评论可能会变得过时,揭示需要更新高质量的评论,以确定总体见解。此外,鉴于AVG研究的显著异质性,研究纳入标准可能会显著影响结论。据我们所知,之前没有系统综述或荟萃分析专门针对针对PA行为增加的纵向AVG干预研究.
目的:这项研究的目的是深入了解纵向AVG干预措施在PA持续升高方面的成功时间和原因。尤其是公共卫生。
方法:六个数据库(PubMed,PsycINFO,SPORTDiscus,MEDLINE,WebofScience,和GoogleScholar)的审查时间到2020年12月31日。该协议已在国际前瞻性系统审查注册(PROSPERO:CRD42020204191)中注册。为了纳入,随机对照试验必须突出(>50%的干预)采用AVG技术,涉及反复的AVG暴露,以及PA行为的目标变化。实验设计必须包括≥2个参与者内或参与者之间的条件,每个条件≥10个参与者。
结果:确定了1996年至2020年间以英文发表的总共25项研究,19项研究为纳入荟萃分析提供了足够的数据。我们的研究结果表明,AVG干预有中等程度的积极作用,从而增加总PA(对冲g=0.525,95%CI0.322-0.728)。我们的分析显示了相当大的异质性(I2=87.7%;Q=154.1)。在所有亚组分析中,主要发现是一致的。PA评估类型组之间的比较显示客观措施的中等效果(Hedgesg=0.586,95%CI0.321-0.852)和主观措施的小效果(Hedgesg=0.301,95%CI0.049-0.554),但两组之间没有显着差异(P=.13)。平台亚组分析显示对踏步装置有中等影响(对冲g=0.303,95%CI0.110-0.496),手持和身体感应设备的组合(对冲g=0.512,95%CI0.288-0.736),和其他设备(对冲g=0.694,95%CI0.350-1.039)。对照组的类型显示出广泛的效应大小,从被动对照组的小效应大小(Hedgesg=0.370,95%CI0.212-0.527)(无)到常规PA干预组的中等效应大小(Hedgesg=0.693,95%CI0.107-1.279),最终到作为对照组的久坐游戏的大效应大小(Hedgesg=0.932,95%CI0.043-1.821)。各组间无显著差异(P=0.29)。
结论:AVG代表了在一般人群和临床亚群中促进PA的有希望的工具。然而,AVG质量的显著变异性,研究设计,和影响也被检测到。将讨论改善AVG干预措施和相关研究的建议。
背景:PROSPEROCRD42020204191;https://www.crd.约克。AC.uk/prospro/display_record.php?RecordID=204191。
Research on digital games designed to increase physical activity (PA), also known as exergames or active video games (AVGs), has proliferated over the past 2 decades. As a result, reviews of literature in this field can become outdated, revealing the need for updated high-quality reviews that identify overarching insights. Furthermore, given the significant heterogeneity in AVG research, study inclusion criteria may significantly influence conclusions. To the best of our knowledge, no prior systematic review or meta-analysis has specifically focused on studies of longitudinal AVG interventions targeting increases in PA behaviors.
The aim of this study was to obtain insights into when and why longitudinal AVG interventions are more or less successful for sustained increases in PA, especially for public health.
Six databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were reviewed until December 31, 2020. This protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42020204191). For inclusion, randomized controlled trials had to prominently (>50% of intervention) feature AVG technology, involve repeated AVG exposure, and target changes in PA behavior. Experimental designs had to include ≥2 within- or between-participant conditions with ≥10 participants per condition.
A total of 25 studies published in English between 1996 and 2020 were identified, with 19 studies providing sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Our findings indicated that AVG interventions had a moderately positive effect, thereby increasing overall PA (Hedges g=0.525, 95% CI 0.322-0.728). Our analysis showed substantial heterogeneity (I2=87.7%; Q=154.1). The main findings were consistent across all subgroup analyses. The comparison between PA assessment type groups showed a moderate effect for objective measures (Hedges g=0.586, 95% CI 0.321-0.852) and a small effect for subjective measures (Hedges g=0.301, 95% CI 0.049-0.554) but no significant difference between the groups (P=.13). The platform subgroup analysis indicated a moderate effect for stepping devices (Hedges g=0.303, 95% CI 0.110-0.496), combination of handheld and body-sensing devices (Hedges g=0.512, 95% CI 0.288-0.736), and other devices (Hedges g=0.694, 95% CI 0.350-1.039). The type of control group showed a wide range of effects sizes, ranging from a small effect size (Hedges g=0.370, 95% CI 0.212-0.527) for the passive control group (nothing) to a moderate effect size for the conventional PA intervention group (Hedges g=0.693, 95% CI 0.107-1.279) and ultimately to a large effect size for sedentary game as control groups (Hedges g=0.932, 95% CI 0.043-1.821). There was no significant difference among the groups (P=.29).
AVGs represent a promising tool for PA promotion among the general population and clinical subpopulations. However, significant variabilities in AVG quality, study design, and impact were also detected. Suggestions for improving AVG interventions and related research will be discussed.
PROSPERO CRD42020204191; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=204191.