| Literature DB >> 35994340 |
Dai-Jie Yang1,2, Meng-Yao Lu3, Chi-Wen Chen1, Pei-Ching Liu1, I-Ching Hou1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preschool-aged children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) receive long-term treatment according to the Taiwan Pediatric Oncology Group (TPOG)-ALL 2013 protocol. Severe anxiety and noncompliance ahead of frequent invasive therapies leads to an increase in health care costs. Previous studies have shown that therapeutic video games (TVGs) can decrease the anxiety experienced by children who are ill. To our knowledge, no existing TVG has been designed specifically for preschool-aged children with ALL in Taiwan.Entities:
Keywords: acute lymphoblastic leukemia; anxiety; childhood cancer; preschoolers; therapeutic video games
Year: 2022 PMID: 35994340 PMCID: PMC9446132 DOI: 10.2196/37079
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Serious Games Impact factor: 3.364
Figure 1The therapeutic video game (TVG) with the MDA framework. BMA: bone marrow aspiration; BT: blood transfusion; IM: intramuscular; IT: intrathecal; IV: intravenous; MDA: Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics; NTD: New Taiwan Dollar; PORT: port-a-cath catheter system.
Figure 2Screenshots showing the mechanics of the therapeutic video game. "Pause" rule (left); "happy," "full," "energetic," and "money" rules (middle); and "task" (ie, complete) rule (right).
Figure 3Screenshots showing the dynamics of the bone marrow aspiration (BMA) task.
The aesthetics of the therapeutic video game.
| Feature | Aesthetics |
| Character | Sensation and fellowship |
| Nursery | Fellowship, sensation, discovery, and expression |
| Task | Discovery, challenge, narrative, sensation, expression, and fellowship |
| Market | Sensation, submission, discovery, expression, and fantasy |
Figure 4Randomized controlled trial study flowchart. 3C: computer, communication, and consumer electronics; ALL: acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Demographic characteristics of the participants.
| Characteristic | Experimental group (n=7), n (%) | Control group (n=8), n (%) | Total participants (N=15), n (%) | |||
|
| .95a | |||||
|
| 3 | 3 (43) | 2 (25) | 5 (33) |
| |
|
| 4 | 0 (0) | 3 (38) | 3 (20) |
| |
|
| 5 | 4 (57) | 3 (38) | 7 (47) |
| |
|
| >.99b | |||||
|
| Male | 5 (71) | 5 (63) | 10 (67) |
| |
|
| Female | 2 (29) | 3 (38) | 5 (33) |
| |
|
| >.99b | |||||
|
| Standard risk | 5 (71) | 6 (75) | 11 (73) |
| |
|
| High risk | 2 (29) | 2 (25) | 4 (27) |
| |
|
| .94c | |||||
|
| Induction | 2 (29) | 1 (13) | 3 (20) |
| |
|
| Consolidation | 0 (0) | 1 (13) | 1 (7) |
| |
|
| Reinduction | 0 (0) | 1 (13) | 1 (7) |
| |
|
| Continuation | 5 (71) | 5 (63) | 10 (67) |
| |
aThis P value was based on the Mann-Whitney U test.
bThis P value was based on the Fisher exact test.
cThis P value was based on the chi-square test (Kendall τb).
Caregiver-reported invasive therapies.
| Invasive therapy administered | Experimental group (n=7) | Control group (n=8) | |||||||
|
| Times administered, n (%) | Range | Mean (SD) | Times administered, n (%) | Range | Mean (SD) |
| ||
| IMb injection (buttocks injection) | 25 (37) | 1-5 | 3.5 (1.6) | 27 (39) | 0-6 | 3.9 (1.3) | .81 | ||
| PORTc puncture | 17 (25) | 0-6 | 2.8 (1.9) | 18 (26) | 1-4 | 2.3 (1.0) | .90 | ||
| IVd injection | 13 (19) | 1-6 | 1.9 (1.9) | 13 (19) | 0-3 | 2.1 (0.4) | .50 | ||
| ITe injection | 6 (9) | 0-2 | 2 (0) | 8 (12) | 0-2 | 1.1 (0.4) | .66 | ||
| BMAf | 4 (6) | 0-2 | 2 (0) | 3 (4) | 0-2 | 1.5 (0.7) | .77 | ||
| BTg | 2 (3) | 0-2 | 2 (0) | 0 (0) | 0-0 | 0 (0) | .29 | ||
| Total | 67 (100) | 6-15 | 9.6 (3.5) | 69 (100) | 2-11 | 8.6 (2.9) | >.99 | ||
aThis P value was based on the Mann-Whitney U test.
bIM: intramuscular.
cPORT: port-a-cath catheter system.
dIV: intravenous.
eIT: intrathecal.
fBMA: bone marrow aspiration.
gBT: blood transfusion.
Actual TVG usage in the experimental group (n=7).
| Item | Log-ins or completed tasks |
| ||||
|
| n (%) | Range | Mean (SD) |
| ||
| TVGa log-ins (n=265) | 265 (100) | 14-62 | 37.9 (15.30) |
| ||
|
| ||||||
|
| Total | 408 (100) | 9-179 | 58.2 (59.4) |
| |
|
| IMb injection (buttocks injection) | 79 (19.4) | 1-28 | 11.3 (10.5) |
| |
|
| PORTc puncture | 51 (12.5) | 0-26 | 8.5 (9.3) |
| |
|
| IVd injection | 66 (16.2) | 0-33 | 11 (11.8) |
| |
|
| ITe injection | 82 (20.1) | 0-31 | 13.7 (11.7) |
| |
|
| BMAf | 63 (15.4) | 0-28 | 10.5 (8.9) |
| |
|
| BTg | 67 (16.4) | 0-33 | 11.1 (10.9) |
| |
aTVG: therapeutic video game.
bIM: intramuscular.
cPORT: port-a-cath catheter system.
dIV: intravenous.
eIT: intrathecal.
fBMA: bone marrow aspiration.
gBT: blood transfusion.
Children’s anxiety responses according to the FRS reports.
| Item | Experimental group (n=7) | Control group (n=8) |
| ||||||||
|
| Records (n=67), n (%) | FRSa score, range | FRS score, mean (SD) | Records (n=69), n (%) | FRS score, range | FRS score, mean (SD) |
|
| |||
|
| |||||||||||
|
| Total | 67 (100) | 1-10 | 6.16 (3.31) | 69 (100) | 1-10 | 7.45 (2.71) | .04 |
| ||
|
| IMb injection (buttocks injection) | 25 (37) | 1-10 | 6.44 (2.97) | 27 (39) | 2-10 | 7.22 (2.83) | .42 |
| ||
|
| PORTc puncture | 17 (25) | 1-10 | 6.82 (3.82) | 18 (26) | 4-10 | 8.22 (2.16) | .63 |
| ||
|
| IVd injection | 13 (19) | 1-10 | 3.62 (2.63) | 13 (19) | 1-10 | 5.85 (3.08) | .04 |
| ||
|
| ITe injection | 6 (9) | 4-10 | 7.67 (2.58) | 8 (12) | 5-10 | 8.25 (2.12) | .64 |
| ||
|
| BMAf | 4 (6) | 2-10 | 6.5 (3.69) | 3 (4) | 9-10 | 9.67 (0.58) | .20 |
| ||
|
| BTg | 2 (3) | 7-10 | 8.50 (2.12) | 0 (0) | N/Ah | N/A | N/A |
| ||
|
| |||||||||||
|
| Positive | 5 (7) | — | — | 4 (6) | — | — | — |
| ||
|
| Negative | 4 (6) | — | — | 13 (19) | — | — | — |
| ||
aFRS: face rating scale.
bIM: intramuscular.
cPORT: port-a-cath catheter system.
dIV: intravenous.
eIT: intrathecal.
fBMA: bone marrow aspiration.
gBT: blood transfusion.
hN/A: not applicable; there were no control group records for BT therapy, so there were no FRS records for that group, and the P value could not be calculated.
iThe other responses items were not evaluated using the FRS, so no values appear in the related columns.