| Literature DB >> 27036094 |
Miel A P Vugts1, Margot C W Joosen, Alfonsus H M M van Bergen, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Applied gaming holds potential as a convenient and engaging means for the delivery of behavioral interventions. For developing and evaluating feasible computer-based interventions, policy makers and designers rely on limited knowledge about what causes variation in usage.Entities:
Keywords: behavioral medicine; computer games; computer-assisted; fatigue syndrome, chronic; feasibility studies; fibromyalgia; mind-body therapies; musculoskeletal pain; patient acceptance of health care; therapy
Year: 2016 PMID: 27036094 PMCID: PMC4833876 DOI: 10.2196/games.5088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Serious Games Impact factor: 4.143
Figure 1Mixed-methods design overview.
Figure 2Flow diagram of study participants.
Characteristics of study participants (N=116).
| Characteristica | N (%) | |
|
| ||
| Sex |
|
|
|
| Female | 71 (61.2) |
| Age, years |
|
|
|
| <35 | 23 (19.9) |
|
| 35-45 | 30 (25.9) |
|
| 45-55 | 41 (35.3) |
|
| 55-67 | 22 (19.0) |
| Education level ISCEDb |
|
|
|
| Primary or less | 32 (25) |
|
| Lower to postsecondary | 44 (37.9) |
|
| Tertiary and posttertiary | 40 (34.5) |
|
| Missing | 3 (2.6) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Employment in paid work |
|
|
|
| Full-time | 49 (42.2) |
|
| Part-time | 52 (44.8) |
|
| None | 15 (12.9) |
| Absenteeism |
|
|
|
| Not | 15 (26.1) |
|
| Partially | 17 (14.8) |
|
| Completely | 69 (59.1) |
| Duration of absenteeism for present somatic symptoms |
|
|
|
| <3 months | 31 (26.7) |
|
| 0-3 month | 41 (35.3) |
|
| 3-6 months | 22 (19.0) |
|
| 6-12 months | 14 (12.1) |
|
| 1-2 years | 6 (5.2) |
|
| >2 years | 2 (1.7) |
| Symptom duration |
|
|
|
| <3 months | 3 (2.6) |
|
| 3-6 months | 11 (9.5) |
|
| 6-12 months | 30 (25.9) |
|
| 1-2 years | 27 (23.3) |
|
| >2 years | 45 (38.8) |
| Pain NRSb |
|
|
|
| No pain (0) | 18 (15.5) |
|
| Mild pain (1-4) | 51 (44.0) |
|
| Moderate pain (5-7) | 36 (31.0) |
|
| Severe pain (7-10) | 11 (9.5) |
| Fatigue |
|
|
|
| No fatigue (NRSb=0) | 2 (1.7) |
|
| Not problematic (CISb ≤76) | 6 (5.3) |
|
| Problematic (CIS >76) | 108 (94.7) |
| CIS subjective fatiguec |
|
|
|
| Above average | 50 (43.1) |
| CIS physical activityc |
|
|
|
| Below average | 67 (58.8) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Primary diagnosis |
|
|
|
| Chronic musculoskeletal disorder | 21 (18.1) |
|
| Chronic pain | 17 (14.7) |
|
| Chronic fatigue | 78 (67.2) |
| SCL-90b depressiond |
|
|
|
| Below average (16-31) | 24 (20.7) |
|
| Above average (32-35) | 7 (6.0) |
|
| High (36-52) | 63 (54.3) |
|
| Very high (≥53) | 22 (19.0) |
| SCL-90 anxietyd |
|
|
|
| Below average (10-17) | 42 (36.2) |
|
| Above average (18) | 7 (6.0) |
|
| High (19-28) | 39 (33.6) |
|
| Very high (≥29) | 28 (24.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Medical specialist treatment |
|
|
|
| Yes | 70 (60.3) |
| Medication usage |
|
|
|
| Yes | 80 (69.0) |
|
| Missing | 1 (.9) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Habit of frequent Internet usage with a PC or laptop |
|
|
|
| On 6-7 days per week | 84 (72.4) |
|
| On 3-5 days per week | 22 (19.0) |
|
| On 1-2 days per week | 9 (7.8) |
|
| On <1 day per week | 1 (0.9) |
| Experience of digital game play |
|
|
|
| Never played a digital game | 37 (31.0) |
|
| More than a year ago | 33 (28.4) |
|
| Less than a year ago | 14 (12.1) |
|
| Less than a month ago | 32 (27.6) |
| Habit of frequent digital game play |
|
|
|
| One or more times per month (and less than a month ago) | 29 (25) |
aA selection of individual baseline characteristics is presented to facilitate comparison with previous evaluations of behavioral interventions for FSS patients [54,55].
b CIS: Checklist Individual Strength, ISCED: International Standard Classification of Education (according to which highest education levels [Dutch system] were rescaled [low = 0-1, middle = 2-4, high = 5-6]) [56], NRS: Numerical Rating Scale, SCL: Symptom Checklist.
cFor all participants (2 missing values were ignored; N=114). In comparison with the average in a population of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome [57].
dCompared with a population of Dutch patients with chronic pain [49].
Overview of independent samples tests.
| Variable | Participants (N=116) | Players (N=71) |
| Mean (SD)/frequency (%), | Mean (SD)/frequency (%), | |
|
| ||
| Female (dit.)b | 71 (61.2), .48 | 45 (63.4), .92 |
| Ageb | 44.4 (10.8), .91 | 44.1 (11.3), .88 |
| Education level | 3.3 (1.3), .12 | 3.3 (1.3), .40 |
| UCLc active engagement | 17.6 (4.0), .53 | 18.5 (3.9), .02 |
| UCL passive responding | 14.3(3.7), .29 | 14.0 (4.0), .11 |
| UCL social support seeking | 13.9 (4.0), .06 | 14.1 (4.0), .03 |
| UCL comforting thought | 12.0 (2.7), .74 | 12.4 (2.7), .38 |
| Environmental issue (dit.) | 61 (53.4), .07 | 34 (47.9), .02 |
| Location A (dit.) | 39 (33.6), .39 | 18 (25.4), .30 |
| Location B (dit.) | 27 (23.3), .41 | 19 (26.8), .89 |
| Location C (dit.) | 29 (25.0), .53 | 18 (25.4), .59 |
| Location D (dit.) | 21 (18.1), .45 | 16 (22.5), .64 |
|
| ||
| Body mass index | 27.1 (5.8), .32 | 27.4 (5,5), .17 |
| Indication for chronic fatigue (dit.) | 78 (67.2), .045 | 54 (76.1), .002 |
| Indication for musculoskeletal disorder (dit.) | 21 (18.1), .16 | 9 (12.7), .03 |
| Indication for chronic pain (dit.) | 17 (14.7), .37 | 8 (11.3), .14 |
| Symptom duration | Median >2 years, .75 | Median >2 years, .34 |
| Symptom recurrence (dit.) | 74 (63.8) .75 | 44 (62.0), .68 |
| Symptom deterioration (dit.) | 69 (59.5), .04 | 43 (60.6), .20 |
| Paid work (dit.) | 101 (87.1), .12 | 62 (87.3), .23 |
| SCL-90ctotal | 206.9 (50.7), .70 | 206.3 (51.2), .94 |
| SCL-90 sleeping problems | 9.1 (3.3), .18 | 9.0 (3.4), .23 |
| SCL-90 hostility | 11.3 (4.5), .38 | 11.1 (4.1), .69 |
| SCL-90 interpersonal sensitivity | 34.9 (12.7), .58 | 33.9 (12.4), .63 |
| SCL-90 insufficiency | 26.0 (7.0), .73 | 26.6 (6.9), .27 |
| SCL-90 somatization | 30.7 (8.3), .86 | 31.3 (7.7), .40 |
| SCL-90 depression | 42.9(11.4), .69 | 41.8 (11.7), .55 |
| SCL-90 anxiety | 22.2 (8.2), .86 | 22.4 (8.5), .99 |
| SCL-90 agoraphobia | 11.0 (5.4), .60 | 11.5 (6.0), .73 |
|
|
|
|
|
| N=47d | N=27d |
| Pain NRSc | 6.5 (1.3), .046 | 6.6 (1.4), .21 |
| PCCLc internalization | 3.2 (.7), .09 | 3.3 (.7), .18 |
| PCCL pain coping | 2.8 (.8), .06 | 2.7 (.8), .009 |
| PCCL catastrophizing | 3.6 (.8), .04 | 3.6 (.8), .11 |
| TSKc | 36.7 (6.8), .80 | 36.4 (7.1), .64 |
|
| N=108e | N=69e |
| CISc subjective fatigue | 50.5 (6.0), .32 | 50.4 (5.6), .85 |
| CIS concentration | 26.3 (8.1), .59 | 26.0 (8.4), .57 |
| CIS motivation | 21.3 (6.1), .59 | 21.4 (6.1), .63 |
| CIS physical (in)activity | 17.2 (4.0), .83 | 16.9 (4.1), .30 |
| CIS total score | 110.1 (14.8), .99 | 109.4 (14.1), .64 |
|
| N=101f | N=62f |
| Part-time work (dit.) | 52 (53.1), .72 | 33 (46.5), .57 |
| Weekly work hours | 31.6 (11.9), .21 | 29.8 (15.4), .12 |
| Absent (dit.) | 86 (74.1), .94 | 54 (87.1), .60 |
| UBOS-ac burnout (dit.) | 26 (22.4), .33 | 16 (22.5), .48 |
| UBOS mental exhaustion | 3.9 (1.5), .72 | 4.0 (1.5), .47 |
| UBOS distancing | 2.3 (1.5), .81 | 2.4 (1.6), .99 |
| UBOS work competence | 4.0 (1.2), .20 | 4.1 (1.1), .08 |
|
| N=86g | N=54g |
| Partially absent (dit.) | 17 (14.7), .31 | 13 (24.1), .94 |
| Sick leave duration | 159.8 (223.4), .91 | 150.4 (15.4), .36 |
|
| ||
| Medication intake (dit.) | 70 (60.3), .48 | 39 (58.2), .06 |
| Previous specialist treatment (dit.) | 81 (69.8), .50 | 47 (66.2), .83 |
aThese comparisons were chosen to inform about study sample profiles and how successful the implementation was in recruiting representative subsamples for exploring “within-group” variation in demand. The players versus nonplayers comparison did not yield more remarkable differences.
bN (%) and P value of chi-square if variable is dichotomous (dit.); median (N) or mean (SD) and P value of Mann-Whitney U test if variable is an ordinal or a ratio scale value.
cCIS: Checklist Individual Strength, PCCL: Pain Coping and Cognitions, SCL: Symptom Checklist, TSK: Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, UBOS-a: Utrecht Burnout Scale labor (a) version, UCL: Utrecht Coping List.
dSubsample of participants with moderate or severe pain, ewith problematic fatigue, and fwith paid work and of those gabsent from work.
Characteristics of interview respondents.
| Characteristic | Respondent #1a | Respondent #2 | Respondent #3 | Respondent #4 |
| Usage (session days, encounters) | 3, 20 | 0, 0 | 1, 1 | 2, 4 |
| Behavioral intention | 6 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| UCL active engagementa | Very high | Very low | Very high | Average |
| Sex | Male | Male | Female | Female |
| Age, years | 35 | 57 | 62 | 54 |
| Work status | No paid work | Fully absent for 97 days | Fully absent for 287 days | Present at work |
| CIS fatigue severityc | Problematic | Above-average CFSb | Above-average CFS | Problematic |
| Pain NRS | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| SCLd anxiety | Average | <Average | High | High |
aCases were identified by inspection of a bivariate scatterplot displaying the most predictive individual baseline characteristic on the x-axis; frequency of usage on the y-axis; and marking dots representing negative (<3), neutral (3-5), and positive (>5) behavioral intentions at t1.
bLevels of active engagement within the sample are similar to healthy worker population levels. Norm scores are slightly different for males and females.
cAs compared to average fatigue severity in a sample of patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome.
dCIS: Checklist Individual Strength, NRS: Numerical Rating Scale, SCL: Symptom Checklist, UCL: Utrecht Coping List.
Associations between demand indicators and behavioral factors.
| Behavioral factor | BF t1 with BI t1a
| BF t1 with BI t2 | BF t2 with BI t2 |
| Performance expectancy | .33, <.001 | .19, .08 | .59, <.001 |
| Expected ease | .42, <.001 | .10, .37 | .35, .045 |
| Social influence | 0.14, .13 | .17, .11 | .42, .01 |
| Perceived behavioral control | .33, <.001 | .04, .71 | .22, .22 |
| Trust | .31, .001 | .21, .049 | .53, .001 |
| Hedonic motivation | .54, <.001 | .43, <.001 | .61, <.001 |
| Computer anxiety | −.27, .003 | .10, .35 |
|
| Computer self-efficacy | .22, .02 | .32, .002 |
|
| Habit (dichotomous) | .22c, .007 | .06c, .53 |
|
| Perceived knowledge improvement |
|
| .77, <.001 |
aBI: behavioral intention, BF: behavioral factor, t: time-point.
bPairwise deletion: one respondent submitted an unfinished web-survey at t1.
cKendall τ (for dichotomous variable) or Spearman ρ (for other variables), P value.
Parameters and models fit of multiple regression for constituent factors of behavioral intention at preadoption.
| Parameters | Model 1: | Model 2: | Model 3: | Model 4: |
| Constant | .84 (.15) | .34 (.63) | .89 (.10) | .69 (.23) |
| PEc | .40 (.002) | .35 (.009) | .04 (.79) | .46 (<.001) |
| EEc | .52 (<.001) | .51 (<.001) | .27 (.02) | .47 (.001) |
| SIc |
| .15 (.09) |
|
|
| PBCc |
| .06 (.63) |
|
|
| HMc |
|
| .59 (<.001) |
|
| HBc |
|
|
| .63 (.02) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| R2 ( | R2 ( | R2 ( | R2 ( |
| Model | .34 (<.001) | .36 (.22) | .43 (<.001) | .38 (.02) |
aObservations of 1 incomplete case were listwise deleted.
bEE: effort expectancy, HB: habit, HM: hedonic motivation, TAM: technology acceptance model, UTAUT: unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, PBC: perceived behavioral control, PE: performance expectancy, SI: social influence.
c,d P of ΔR2 is the P value of variance explained by the model over ca constant-only model, or dover model 1.
Associations between baseline characteristics and demand indicators.
| Baseline variable | BI t1 | Session days | Session days | Time spent | Progress | BI t2 |
|
| ||||||
|
| N=116 | N=116 | N=71 | N=71 | N=71 | N=93 |
| Female (dit)a | −.04, .59 | −.03, .77 | −.10, .34 | −.10, .29 | −.13, .22 | −.08, .38 |
| Age | −.10, .28 | −.02, .84 | −.05, .69 | .03, .78 | −.00, .97 | .25, .02 |
| Education level (ISCED)b | −.05, .60 | −.12, .18 | −.21, .08 | −.24, .048 | −.24, .048 | .28, .006 |
| UCLb active engagement | .25, .008 | .30, .001 | .23, .06 | .13, .29 | .13, .28 | .11, .31 |
| UCL passive responding | −.09, .32 | −.16, .08 | −.19, .12 | .02, .86 | −.02, .89 | .02, .82 |
| UCL social support seeking | .09, .37 | .19, .045 | .23, .052 | .20, .08 | .24, .04 | .08, .43 |
| UCL comforting thought | .20, .03 | .19, .04 | .11, .36 | .09, .44 | .09, .48 | .05, .62 |
| Environmental issue (dit.) | −.15, .06 | −.03, .13 | .13, .22 | .07, .48 | .10, .34 | .06, .50 |
| Location A (dit.) | −.17, .03 | −.22, .01 | −.13, .22 | −.18, .06 | −.19, .07 | −.02, .86 |
| Location B (dit.) | .07, .42 | .01, .93 | −.15, .15 | −.14, .17 | −.18, .08 | −.091, .31 |
| Location C (dit.) | .07, .37 | .06, .47 | .15, .18 | .12, .23 | .14, .18 | .030, .74 |
| Location D (dit.) | .06, .46 | .19, .03 | .15, .17 | .21, .03 | .24, .02 | .084, .35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N=116 | N=116 | N=71 | N=71 | N=71 | N=93 |
| Body mass index | .05, .64 | .13, .17 | .06, .60 | .06, .65 | .11, .39 | .10, .34 |
| Indication chronic fatigue (dit.) | .06, .48 | .07, .43 | −.18, .09 | −.18, .06 | −.16, .12 | .15, .10 |
| Indication musculoskeletal (dit.) | −.02, .78 | −.05, .56 | .16, .15 | .10, .30 | .10, .31 | −.16, .07 |
| Indication chronic pain (dit.) | −.05, .53 | −.04, .69 | .08, .44 | .14, .16 | .10, .31 | −.02, .83 |
| Pain intensity NRSb | −.03, .79 | .15, .12 | .29, .02 | .28, .02 | .29, .02 | .05, .63 |
| Symptom duration | −.05, .58 | −.08, .40 | −.01, .92 | .01, .94 | .03, .79 | −.04, .70 |
| Symptom recurrence (dit.) | −.02, .74 | −.05, .53 | −.08, .49 | −.12, .23 | −.09, .37 | .03, .78 |
| Symptom deterioration (dit.) | .05, .51 | .14, .09 | .21, .054 | .25, .01 | .20, .048 | .13, .17 |
| Paid work (dit.) | .04, .64 | .03, .77 | .07, .54 | .03, .75 | −.00, .98 | −.10, .30 |
| Part-time (dit.) | .07, .38 | .05, .54 | .09, .43 | .04, .67 | .03, .78 | .08, .37 |
| Weekly work hours | .09, .35 | .05, .60 | .02, .87 | .04, .75 | .03, .84 | −.16, .13 |
| Work absence (dit.) | −.01, .89 | .02, 87 | −.07, .52 | .02, .88 | −.01, .97 | .05, .64 |
| SCLb total | −.08, .41 | −.11, .23 | −.20, .09 | −.06, .63 | −.12, .30 | −.05, .63 |
| SCL sleeping problems | −.12, .19 | −.10, .29 | −.09, .48 | −.05, .71 | −.10, .40 | −.01, .96 |
| SCL hostility | −.09, .32 | −.01, .94 | −.03, .83 | .01, .97 | −.03, .80 | .07, .47 |
| SCL interpersonal sensitivity | −.14, .14 | −.13, .17 | −.16, .19 | −.04, .73 | −.06, .61 | −.01, .96 |
| SCL insufficiency | .03, .74 | .03, .78 | −.13, .29 | −.02, .86 | −.09, .44 | −.01, .90 |
| SCL somatization | .01, .94 | .09, .36 | .02, .89 | .07, .56 | .01, .92 | .02, .88 |
| SCL depression | −.11, .25 | −.17, .07 | −.18, .13 | −.03, .78 | −.09, .44 | −.11, .28 |
| SCL anxiety | .00, .98 | −.13, .18 | −.28, .02 | −.15, .23 | −.21, .08 | .04, .74 |
| SCL agoraphobia | .02, .83 | −.06, .50 | −.29, .02 | −.14, .25 | −.19, .11 | −.07, .53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N=47 | N=47 | N=27 | N=27 | N=27 | N=38 |
| PCCL internalization | .14, .37 | −.11, .46 | −.36, .07 | −.42, .03 | −.48, .01 | −.06, .73 |
| PCCL pain coping | −.03, .87 | −.35, .02 | −.28, .16 | −.25, .21 | −.26, .19 | −.01, .95 |
| PCCL catastrophizing | .03, .83 | .02, .92 | .16, .42 | .30, .14 | .25, .21 | .03, .84 |
| TSK kinesiophobia | −.08, .61 | −.08, .58 | .09, .67 | .26, .20 | .23, .25 | −.08, .64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N=108 | N=108 | N=69 | N=69 | N=69 | N=86 |
| CISb subjective fatigue | −.04, .66 | −.09, .38 | −.07, .55 | −.02, .90 | −.10, .42 | .03, .80 |
| CIS concentration | .07, .49 | −.10, .30 | −.15, .22 | −.05, .67 | −.09, .47 | .15, .16 |
| CIS motivation | −.08, .44 | −.05, .59 | −.13, .29 | −.04, .72 | −.10, .41 | .19, .08 |
| CIS physical or inactivity | .02, .81 | −.05, .60 | .02, .90 | .13, .27 | .09, .48 | −.04, .75 |
| CIS total score | −.02, .82 | −.12, .22 | −.18, .14 | −.06, .64 | −.13, .29 | .16, .15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N=101 | N=101 | N=62 | N=62 | N=62 | N=93 |
| UBOS-a burnout (dit.) | −.01, .95 | −.10, .30 | −.23, .050 | −.17, .10 | −.20, .06 | .04, 67 |
| UBOS-a mental exhaustion | .03, .77 | .01, .90 | −.08, .55 | −.11, .42 | −.11, .38 | .11, .35 |
| UBOS-a distancing | .10, .93 | −.08, .40 | −.19, .15 | −.16, .22 | −.20, .12 | .10, .36 |
| UBOS-a work competence | .15, .14 | .19, .052 | .29, .02 | .27, .03 | .32, .01 | −.14, .22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| N=86 | N=86 | N=54 | N=54 | N=54 | N=69 |
| Partially vs. fully absent (dit.) | .06, .55 | .26, .01 | .27, .03 | .18, .11 | .20, .09 | .09, .40 |
| Sick leave duration | .21, .054 | .13, .24 | .02, .91 | .01, .96 | .00, .98 | −.10, .41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N=116 | N=116 | N=71 | N=71 | N=71 | N=93 |
| Medication intake (dit.) | −.09, .44 | −.15, .09 | −.13, .22 | −.10, .31 | −.11, .27 | .02, .79 |
| Specialist treatment (dit.) | −.03, .72 | −.06, .53 | .16, .16 | .08, .41 | .15, .15 | .09, .35 |
a ρ: Spearman ρ statistic was calculated when both variables had interval or ratio measurement levels, τ: Kendall τ statistic was calculated for dichotomous level independent variables (dit.) P: P value of test statistic.
bCIS: Checklist Individual Strength, ISCED: International Standard Classification of Education Level, NRS: Numerical Rating Scale, PCCL: Pain Coping and Cognitions, SCL: Symptom Checklist, TSK: Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, UBOS-a: Utrecht Burnout Scale labor (a) version, UCL: Utrecht Coping List.
Descriptive results of demand level assessment.
| Demand indicator | N | Mean | Median | SDa | Min | Max |
| BIa at t1 | 116 | 5.1 | 5 | 1.4 | 1 | 7 |
| BI at t2 | 93 | 3.5 | 4 | 2.0 | 1 | 7 |
| Session days | 71 | 1.8 | 2 | 1.4 | 0 | 6 |
| Time spend | 71 | 1:14:40 | 0:52:25 | 1:07:42 | 0:00:00 | 4:22:27 |
| Progression | 71 | 8.1 | 7 | 7.3 | 0 | 32 |
aBI: behavioral intention, SD: standard deviation.
Figure 3The proportions of players who stopped using LAKA at certain stages of progress.
Figure 4Sums of logged in game activities throughout the first 12 weeks of patients' IRPs.
Figure 5Number of logins by participants by time of the day.