Victor Cotton1, Mitesh S Patel1,2,3. 1. 1 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. 2 The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. 3 Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the presence of gamification in popular mobile applications and whether principles from behavioral economics were incorporated in the design. DESIGN: The top 50 ranked free health and fitness applications were downloaded. Gamification elements were predetermined through literature review, and applications were evaluated for their presence. SETTING: App Store by Apple Inc. MEASURES: Presence of gamification, type of game element, and use of behavioral economic principles. ANALYSIS: We classified the types and frequencies of targeted behaviors and features of gamification. Use of behavioral economic principles focused on designing rewards or points using loss aversion (allocated upfront and could be lost), variable reinforcement (not allocated constantly), and probability inflation (using drawings or lottery designs). RESULTS: Gamification was used by 64% of mobile applications. Most applications that included gamification (97%) targeted behaviors related to physical activity and weight loss. Applications focused on other areas such as reproductive health, meditation, and sleep used gamification less often (11%). Game elements used most commonly included goal setting (78%), social influences (78%), and challenges (63%), while less common elements included points (6%) and levels (3%). No applications incorporated behavioral economics principles specified in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Gamification was commonly used by popular health and fitness mobile applications, but none used the specified behavioral economic principles to design rewards or points. Mobile applications could potentially improve their use if their design better leveraged principles from behavioral economics.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the presence of gamification in popular mobile applications and whether principles from behavioral economics were incorporated in the design. DESIGN: The top 50 ranked free health and fitness applications were downloaded. Gamification elements were predetermined through literature review, and applications were evaluated for their presence. SETTING: App Store by Apple Inc. MEASURES: Presence of gamification, type of game element, and use of behavioral economic principles. ANALYSIS: We classified the types and frequencies of targeted behaviors and features of gamification. Use of behavioral economic principles focused on designing rewards or points using loss aversion (allocated upfront and could be lost), variable reinforcement (not allocated constantly), and probability inflation (using drawings or lottery designs). RESULTS: Gamification was used by 64% of mobile applications. Most applications that included gamification (97%) targeted behaviors related to physical activity and weight loss. Applications focused on other areas such as reproductive health, meditation, and sleep used gamification less often (11%). Game elements used most commonly included goal setting (78%), social influences (78%), and challenges (63%), while less common elements included points (6%) and levels (3%). No applications incorporated behavioral economics principles specified in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Gamification was commonly used by popular health and fitness mobile applications, but none used the specified behavioral economic principles to design rewards or points. Mobile applications could potentially improve their use if their design better leveraged principles from behavioral economics.
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Luca Foschini; Gregory W Kurtzman; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Charles A L Rareshide; Susan M Zbikowski Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nancy Haff; Mitesh S Patel; Raymond Lim; Jingsan Zhu; Andrea B Troxel; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2015 May-Jun
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Kevin G Volpp; Roy Rosin; Scarlett L Bellamy; Dylan S Small; Jack Heuer; Susan Sproat; Chris Hyson; Nancy Haff; Samantha M Lee; Lisa Wesby; Karen Hoffer; David Shuttleworth; Devon H Taylor; Victoria Hilbert; Jingsan Zhu; Lin Yang; Xingmei Wang; David A Asch Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2018-03-13
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; David A Asch; Roy Rosin; Dylan S Small; Scarlett L Bellamy; Jack Heuer; Susan Sproat; Chris Hyson; Nancy Haff; Samantha M Lee; Lisa Wesby; Karen Hoffer; David Shuttleworth; Devon H Taylor; Victoria Hilbert; Jingsan Zhu; Lin Yang; Xingmei Wang; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Emelia J Benjamin; Kevin G Volpp; Caroline S Fox; Dylan S Small; Joseph M Massaro; Jane J Lee; Victoria Hilbert; Maureen Valentino; Devon H Taylor; Emily S Manders; Karen Mutalik; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Joanne M Murabito Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: E A Edwards; J Lumsden; C Rivas; L Steed; L A Edwards; A Thiyagarajan; R Sohanpal; H Caton; C J Griffiths; M R Munafò; S Taylor; R T Walton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Dylan S Small; Joseph D Harrison; Victoria Hilbert; Michael P Fortunato; Ai Leen Oon; Charles A L Rareshide; Kevin G Volpp Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Jill Waalen; Melissa Peters; Daya Ranamukhaarachchi; Jenny Li; Gail Ebner; Julia Senkowsky; Eric J Topol; Steven R Steinhubl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael Fortunato; Joseph Harrison; Ai Leen Oon; Dylan Small; Victoria Hilbert; Charles Rareshide; Mitesh Patel Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-11-20
Authors: Anish K Agarwal; Kimberly J Waddell; Dylan S Small; Chalanda Evans; Tory O Harrington; Rachel Djaraher; Ai Leen Oon; Mitesh S Patel Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01