Carter 2021 認知症を理解するためのゲームの効果

はじめに

  1. 論文全文を速読します
  2. 英文があるところで「↓」キーを押してみてください
  3. 統計について、再現してみます

印刷用バージョン

論文

Carter G, Brown Wilson C, & Mitchell G (2021) The effectiveness of a digital game to improve public perception of dementia: A pretest-posttest evaluation. Plos one, 16(10), e0257337.

認知症を理解するためのゲームの効果

著者

英国ベルファストにある Queen’s University Belfast 大学看護・助産学

Authors

ORCIDとは、研究者のデータベース。ORCID ID を取得しておくと、自分で出版した論文などを管理することができる。

日本限定の researchmap というサービスも、ORCID データを参照している。

Abstract

The global impact of dementia is a key healthcare priority, and although it is possible to live well with dementia, public perception is often negative. Serious digital games are becoming a credible delivery method to educate/train individuals in the business and health sectors and to challenge perceptions. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital game prototype on individual attitudes towards dementia. A digital game to improve public knowledge and understanding about dementia (www.dementiagame.com) was co-designed with people living with dementia and student nurses.

Structured な Abstract ではない

  • 認知症は否定的に捉えられることが少なくない。
  • シリアスなデジタルゲームは、教育/訓練を通して人々の認識に挑戦する
  • 認知症に関する一般の知識と理解を向上させるためのデジタルゲーム(www.dementiagame.com)

Quiz

  1. この Abstract は、Structured Abstract である。
  2. この Abstract は、Structured Abstract ではない。

Abstract

The Game was evaluated using a pretest-posttest design. Participants for the evaluation were recruited via social media in one UK university and completed the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire (ADQ) before and after playing the game. Overall, 457 individuals completed both pre and post test questionnaires. The total ADQ score demonstrated a significant improvement in positive attitudes (p < 0.001), and both subscales of Hope and Recognition of Personhood also saw significant improvements (p < 0.001). The use of a serious digital game has demonstrated a significant effect on the respondents’ perceptions of dementia.

ADQ: 認知症の理解度を測る質問検査

subscale: 下位尺度。例えば、「健康関連QOL」という尺度には、「身体機能」「体の痛み」「心の健康」などの下位尺度がある。

  • 前後比較デザインで評価
  • 参加者は、ソーシャルメディアを通じて募集
  • アウトカムは認知症へのアプローチ質問票(ADQ)
  • 全体で457名がテスト前とテスト後のアンケートに回答
  • ADQが、ポジティブな態度の有意な改善
  • 「希望」と「人格の認識」が有意な改善

Quiz

Participants were ( A ) via social media in one UK university.

  1. recruited
  2. collected

Introduction

It is well documented that the impact of dementia is a global healthcare priority [1, 2]. In 2015 it was reported that 46.8million people were living with dementia [3], a figure that is expected to double every 20 years [1]. This highlights that not only is the number of people living with dementia increasing but that this will be accompanied by a rise of those affected by dementia such as a family member, friend, healthcare provider or support professional [1, 4].

[1] World Health Organisation. Dementia a Public Health Priority. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2012.
[2] World Health Organization. Global action plan on the public health response to dementia 2017–2025. 2017.
[3] Alzheimer’s Disease International. World Alzheimer Report 2016: Improving healthcare for people living with dementia coverage, Quality and costs now and In the future.; 2016.
[4] Peacock SC, Hammond-Collins K, Forbes DA. The journey with dementia from the perspective of bereaved family caregivers: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nursing. 2014;13:42. pmid:25435810

  • 2015年には、4680万人が認知症と共存[3]
  • この数字は20年ごとに倍増すると予想[1]

Quiz 2015年には、4680万人が認知症と共存と報告している引用文献はどれか?

[1] World Health Organisation. Dementia a Public Health Priority. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2012.
[2] World Health Organization. Global action plan on the public health response to dementia 2017–2025. 2017.
[3] Alzheimer’s Disease International. World Alzheimer Report 2016: Improving healthcare for people living with dementia coverage, Quality and costs now and In the future.; 2016.
[4] Peacock SC, Hammond-Collins K, Forbes DA. The journey with dementia from the perspective of bereaved family caregivers: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nursing. 2014;13:42. pmid:25435810

Introduction

Dementia is one of the major causes of disability and dependency among older adults worldwide [1, 4], however attitudes and public perceptions of dementia still remain below par. In 2019 Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI) published results of the attitudes to dementia survey, completed by 70,000 respondents representing 155 countries [5]. Although awareness of dementia is increasing, understanding of the development and progression of the disease remains low. As such, rather than recognising dementia as a neurodegenerative disease, two thirds of all respondents and 62% of healthcare practitioners thought dementia to be caused by normal ageing. In the UK specifically, only 51% of the public recognise the terminal nature of dementia despite it being a leading cause of death [6].

[5] Alzheimer’s Disease International. World Alzheimer Report 2019 Attitudes to dementia. 2019.
[6] Alzheimer’s Research UK. Dementia Attitudes Monitor Wave 1 Cambridge, Uk; 2018.

  • 認知症発症や進行に関する理解は低い
  • 英国の一般市民の51%のみが認知症の末期的な性質を認識[6]

Introduction

Initiatives to engage the public with lived experiences of dementia, and Dementia Friendly Communities [6, 7] are helping to address negative attitudes, but stigma and discrimination are still experienced by some people living with dementia. Public stigma is generated by stereotypes, and prejudice resulting in discriminatory behaviour towards those with dementia [8]. For example, in South East Asia and Africa, 63% and 67% respectively, of respondents of the ADI survey living with dementia said their symptoms had been ridiculed [5]. Stigma has the potential to negatively impact on the lives of people living with dementia and their carers as they may absorb the public conception of dementia leading to a belief in their own loss of competence or that they should no longer engage in public activities [8]. In order to eradicate such attitudes, the dispelling of myths and the continual improvement of public awareness of dementia is essential.

[6] Alzheimer’s Research UK. Dementia Attitudes Monitor Wave 1 Cambridge, Uk; 2018.
[7] Alzheimer’s Disease International. Dementia Friendly Communities Global developments. London, UK; 2017.
[8] Nguyen T, Li X. Understanding public-stigma and self-stigma in the context of dementia: A systematic review of the global literature. Dementia (London). 2020;19(2):148–81. pmid:31920117

stigma: 汚名、恥辱

  • 世間のスティグマは、認知症の人に対する差別的な行動を引き起こすステレオタイプや偏見によって生み出され [8]
  • スティグマは認知症患者やその介護者の生活に悪影響を及ぼす可能性がある [8]
  • このような意識を払拭するため、人々の認知度を継続的に向上させることが不可欠

Introduction

Serious digital games are a form of a computer-delivered intervention, designed for a purpose other than purely entertainment with the aim of educating or promoting behaviour change [9]. Serious gaming/gamification for health professionals has been demonstrated to be an effective delivery mode of education and on occasion more effective for improving knowledge and skills than traditional methods [10]. A recent meta-analysis of research in which this method was used for healthy lifestyle promotion concluded digital gaming is effective as stand-alone or a multi-component program and appeals to diverse population regardless of age or gender [9].

To tailor a serious digital game to our specific needs of improving public perception of dementia, a prototype of the game (www.dementiagame.com) was developed through co-design with people living with dementia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the digital game prototype to determine if it improved individual attitudes towards dementia through ‘players’ completing the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire (ADQ) [11] questionnaire pre and post access to the digital game.

[9] DeSmet A, Van Ryckeghem D, Compernolle S, Baranowski T, Thompson D, Crombez G, et al. A meta-analysis of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion. Prev Med. 2014;69:95–107. pmid:25172024
[10] Gentry SV, Gauthier A, L’Estrade Ehrstrom B, Wortley D, Lilienthal A, Tudor Car L, et al. Serious Gaming and Gamification Education in Health Professions: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e12994. pmid:30920375
[11] Cheston R, Hancock J, White P. A cross-sectional investigation of public attitudes toward dementia in Bristol and South Gloucestershire using the approaches to dementia questionnaire. International psychogeriatrics. 2016;28(10):1717–24. pmid:27353013

  • シリアスデジタルゲームとは、教育や行動変容の促進を目的としたゲーム [9]
  • 医療従事者のためのシリアスゲーム/ゲーミフィケーション[10]や健康的なライフスタイルは年齢や性別に関係なく[9]、効果がある
  • 認知症に対する社会の認識を向上させるゲームのプロトタイプ(www.dementiagame.com)を認知症の人と共同設計で開発
  • 本研究の目的は、「認知症へのアプローチ質問票(ADQ)」[11]のアンケートに「プレイヤー」が答えることによって、認知症に対する個人の態度を改善したかどうかを判定すること

Quiz 健康的なライフスタイルに関する先行研究[9]の研究デザインは何か?

  1. ランダム化比較試験
  2. メタ分析

Methods

About the game

The ‘Dementia Game’ (www.dementiagame.com) is digital game that challenges stereotypes and stigma around dementia. People living with dementia shared their experiences to identify themes the game would cover [12], then along with nursing students and the research team we co-designed questions and the format of the game in coproduction workshops supported by Focus Games™ (https://focusgames.com/).

「認知症ゲーム」(www.dementiagame.com)は、認知症に関する固定観念やスティグマに挑戦するデジタルゲーム

Methods

The ‘Dementia Game’ is a web application (HTML5) which can be played on any device with an internet connection. It is designed to be simple to use, where players must navigate a path to reach the finish line. Players answer a series of questions related to dementia that are provided in a random order from an existing question bank. These questions were co-designed by people living with dementia and were about challenging misconceptions e.g., that dementia is not a normal part of ageing, and they also addressed different questions than those within the ADQ. These challenge players’ knowledge about dementia, including their attitude and behaviours. Answering questions correctly wins points with bonus points earned for reaching the finish line. Players can post their scores and challenge friends and colleagues to play. The ‘Dementia Game’ takes approximately 90 seconds to play and players can have multiple attempts (please see Figs 1 and 2).

  • 「認知症ゲーム」は、インターネットに接続できる端末であれば、どこでも遊べるWebアプリケーション(HTML5)である。
  • プレイヤーは道を進みながらゴールを目指す
  • プレイヤーは、既存の質問バンクからランダムに提供される認知症に関する一連の質問に答える
  • 「認知症は老化の一部ではない」といった誤解を解くことが目的
  • 問題に正解するとポイントが加算され、ゴールするとボーナスポイントが加算
  • 「認知症ゲーム」の所要時間は約90秒で、何度も挑戦することがが可能

Design

A pretest-posttest design was used to determine the effectiveness of the serious digital game. After participants had completed the ADQ [11] provided online at baseline, a link was made available to commence the dementia game. At the end of the game the ADQ was completed again. For this study individuals were requested to play the game and answer the ADQ once, then their IP address was logged, and they would not receive the questionnaire again. After this they were welcome to continue accessing the game.

  • シリアスなデジタルゲームの効果を判定するための前後比較デザイン
  • 参加者は、ベースライン時にオンラインで提供されたADQ[11]
  • ゲーム終了後、ADQを再度記入
  • 一度ゲームをプレイしてADQに回答すると、IPアドレスが記録され、二度と質問票を受け取らないようにした

Methods Participants

The sample size was calculated using the software G*Power 3.1.9.4 [13, 14]. Assuming p < 0.05 and a power of 0.9, the required number of participants to observe an effect size of 0.5 in the attitudes towards dementia was calculated to be 44 matched pairs. Potential participants were recruited via social media using central university Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram pages. Information about this study and links to participate were shared weekly on these channels from 01.09.2019 to 30.09.2019. Access to the questionnaires and game closed at the end of this period. Participants did not have to sign written consent forms and consent was implied through their active selection of the game weblink. Participants were required to use their own laptop, computer tablet or mobile phone to access the game and complete the questionnaires. Due to the nature of this study, we did not apply active inclusion or exclusion criteria. Given the recruitment strategy, it is likely that most participants are prospective, current, or past university students.

The study power determines the sample size. The more powerful a study, the mode confidence one has that a difference between groups does not truly exist when that is the study result. In general, larger sample sizes are required when the expected differences between groups are small or there is a great deal of variation in the data.
AMA Manual of Style 11th edition p. 1067
  • サンプルサイズはソフトウェア G*Power 3.1.9.4 [13, 14] を用いて算出
  • p < 0.05、検出力0.9と仮定すると、認知症に対する態度の効果量0.5を観察するために必要な参加者数は、44組のマッチペア
  • 参加希望者は、大学のFacebook、Twitter、LinkedIn、Instagramのページを利用し、ソーシャルメディアを通じて募集された
  • ほとんどの参加者は、将来、現在、または過去の大学生であると思われる

Quiz

本研究の( A ) は、44であった。

  1. サンプル数
  2. サンプルサイズ

Methods Evaluation

The ADQ [11] is a 19-item questionnaire, that has been demonstrated to be valid and reliable [11, 15, 16]. Each item is comprised of a five-point Likert scale measuring the level of agreement or disagreement with a statement, with total scores ranging 19–95. Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes towards people with dementia. It is also comprised of two subscales ‘Recognition of Personhood’ and ‘Hope’. The subscale on person centeredness focuses on the way a person with dementia is seen as an individual person with the capabilities whilst the subscale for Hope demonstrates either an optimistic or pessimistic approach to a person with dementia. For the purpose of this study these helped to understand someone’s attitude towards dementia by determining the extent to which those playing the game recognised people affected by dementia as unique individuals with the same value as any other person, and it also highlighted any sense of optimism or pessimism the person had about the abilities and the future of a person affected by dementia.

  1. Cheston R, Hancock J, White P. Does personal experience of dementia change attitudes? The Bristol and South Gloucestershire survey of dementia attitudes. Dementia. 2019;18(7–8):2596–608. pmid:29336167
  2. Lintern T. Quality in dementia care: evaluating staff attitudes and behavior: University of Wales, Bangor; 2001.

Likert scale: リッカート尺度。質問に対する合意の度合いを「全く同意できない」「同意できない」「どちらともいえない」「同意できる」「非常に同意できる」の5段階などで尋ねる方法。

Likert scale: scale often used to assess opnion or attitude, ranked by attaching a number to each response, such as 1, strongly agree; 2 agree; 3, undecided or neutral; 4, disagree; and 5, strongly disagree.

AMA Manual of Style 11th edition p. 1051
  • ADQ [11]は19項目の質問紙であり、有効性と信頼性が実証されている[11, 15, 16]
  • 各項目は5点リカートスケールで構成され、合計得点は19-95
  • 得点が高いほど、認知症の人に対する態度が肯定的
  • 「人格の認識」と「希望」の2つの下位尺度から構成されている

ADQ日本語版は鈴木みずえ

Methods Evaluation

General demographic questions were asked at baseline along with three questions related to experiences of knowing someone with dementia, working with those living with dementia, and training/education about dementia [11, 15]. This was to enable us to identify if prior experience or training in dementia care influenced the change (if any) in attitudes towards dementia.

  • ベースライン時に一般的な人口統計学的質問と、認知症の人を知っている経験、認知症の人と働いた経験、認知症に関する研修・教育の経験に関する3つの質問を行った [11, 15]

Methods Analysis

All data were transferred from Survey Monkey to an excel spreadsheet, where they were cleaned, coded and scored according to the ADQ guidelines. Data were quality checked by two members of the research team (GC and GM). Demographic data were reviewed using descriptive analysis. Matched pairs for the ADQ scores at baseline and follow-up were analysed using dependent t-tests, with a two-tailed significance level set at α = .05. The effect size was calculated with Pearson’s correlation r, a versatile measure of the strength of an experimental effect [17], constrained to lie between 0 (no effect) and 1 (perfect effect). The effect size is considered small if the value of r is around .10, medium if r varies around .30 and large if around or greater than .50 [18]. Analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS statistics 21 with advice provided by a statistician independent to the study.

[17] Field A. Discoverting statistics using SPSS. 3rd Edition ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2009.
[18] Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1988.

baseline: 介入研究における介入前の段階。

follow-up: 介入研究における介入後の段階。

Cases are followed. Patients are not followed but observed. However, either cases or patients may be followed up
AMA Manual of Style 11th edition p. 521

  • すべてのデータはSurvey MonkeyからExcelスプレッドシートに転送され、そこでADQのガイドラインに従ってクリーニング、コード化、スコアリングが行われた
  • データの品質チェックは、研究チームの 2 名のメンバー(GC と GM)が行った
  • ベースライン時とフォローアップ時のADQスコアのマッチペアは、α=0.05の両側有意水準で従属t検定を用いて分析
  • 効果量は、実験効果の強さの汎用的な尺度であるピアソンの相関r [17]
  • 効果量は、rの値が0.10程度なら小、0.30程度なら中、0.50程度またはそれ以上なら大とみなされる[18]
  • 分析は、本研究とは独立した統計学者による助言

Quiz データの品質チェックを行ったのは誰か?

  1. Gillian Carter and Christine Brown Willson
  2. Gillian Carter and Gary Mitchell

Methods Ethics

This study received ethical approval by Queen’s University Belfast, School of Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Committee in April 2019 (Reference: CBrownWilson 03.19 M2.V1). Participants did not provide verbal or written consent but were informed that they were under no obligation to complete any of the questionnaires. Participants gave their consent to complete the questionnaire when they actively accessed the survey web links.

  • クイーンズ大学ベルファスト校看護・助産学部研究倫理委員会より倫理的承認を得た(文献:CBrownWilson 03.19 M2.V1)

Results

In total 997 participants completed the baseline questionnaire and subsequently played the ‘Dementia Game’. Of these 457 people also completed the post test questionnaire. Only the 457 matched pairs were used for analysis. Table 1 provides the demographics of these respondents and their answers to the three dementia related questions posed. Of the 457 respondents, the vast majority were white and female, with 78.1% between the age 18–34. Nearly two-thirds did not have a family member or close friend living with dementia, and just over half had not worked with people living with dementia, and finally 55% had completed some form of training or education about dementia.

  • 合計997名の参加者がベースラインアンケートに回答し、その後「認知症ゲーム」をプレイ
  • 457人がテスト後のアンケートにも回答
  • 分析には、マッチした457組のペアのみを使用
  • 大多数は白人で女性、78.1%が18-34歳
  • 3分の2近くが認知症の家族や親友を持たない
  • 半数強が認知症の人と働いたことがない
  • 55%が認知症に関する何らかのトレーニングや教育を修了している

Quiz デザイン時の必要サンプルサイズと実際のサンプルサイズの組合わせはどれ?

  1. デザイン時に44, 調査時に457
  2. デザイン時に457, 調査時に44

Results

Results

Overall, the ADQ total score demonstrated a significant increase from 79.60 (±6.663) pretest to 82.24 (±6.580) posttest (p < .001). Similarly, significant increase in scores were found for the Hope and Recognition of Personhood subscales (both p < .001) (Table 2). The ADQ total score and subscale scores all yielded significantly large effect sizes (between .592 and.725).

  • ADQの総スコアは、テスト前の79.60(±6.663)からテスト後の82.24(±6.580)へと有意に増加(p < 0.001)
  • 「希望」と「人格の認識」の下位尺度においても、得点の有意な増加(いずれもp<0.001)(表2)。
  • ADQの総得点と下位尺度の得点は、いずれも有意に大きな効果量(0.592~0.725)

Results

Results

Subgroup analysis of the dichotomous responses to the three personal dementia questions at baseline showed that they all had significant improvement in perceptions whether or not they had personal experience of dementia, worked with people living with dementia or received training in dementia (Table 3).

サブグループ分析では、いずれも認知度が有意に改善された(表3)。

Table 3

Discussion

Serious digital gaming/gamification was an effective mode of delivery to enhance the understanding and perceptions of ‘players’, who demonstrated a significant improvement of individual attitudes towards dementia. Those playing the game developed a significantly greater optimistic view of the abilities and capabilities of people with dementia. They were also significantly more likely to recognise people with dementia as unique individuals with the same values as any other person. The fact that we see improvements in attitudes is very meaningful, the large effect size shows that there is practical significance of completing the short dementia game. Not only does it attempt to challenge misconceptions about dementia but can then potentially be a tool to start a conversation about dementia.

  • シリアスなデジタルゲーム/ゲーミフィケーションは認知症に対する個人の態度が大きく改善されることが示された
  • 認知症の人の能力や可能性について、かなり楽観的な見方をするようになった。
  • 認知症の人を他の人と同じ価値観を持つユニークな個人として認識する傾向が有意に強まった

Discussion

In this study whether or not the respondent either knew or worked with someone with dementia or received formal training about dementia still were shown to have a significant improvement in their attitude towards dementia. Indeed many young adults may know a person living with dementia but this does not directly mean that they fully understand the condition and how to engage [6]. Similarly, De Vries et al [19] found that specialist dementia training in health care workers in New Zealand made no difference to respondent ADQ scores. A cross-sectional survey conducted by Rosato et al [20] examined factors linked with public knowledge of and attitudes towards dementia. Analysis of 1211 responses demonstrated that despite public campaigns increasing awareness, they reported a high prevalence of personal aversion to dementia which was inversely linked with knowledge and contact. …

[19] de Vries K, Drury-Ruddlesden J, McGill G. Investigation into attitudes towards older people with dementia in acute hospital using the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire. Dementia (London). 2020;19(8):2761–79. pmid:31226896
[20] Rosato M, Leavey G, Cooper J, De Cock P, Devine P. Factors associated with public knowledge of and attitudes to dementia: A cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(2):e0210543. pmid:30817791

  • De Vriesら[19]によると、ニュージーランドの医療従事者が認知症の専門教育を受けたとしても、回答者のADQスコアに差はない
  • Rosatoら [20]によると、キャンペーンによって認知度が向上しても、認知症に対する個人的な嫌悪感が高く、それは知識や接触と逆相関している
  • Nguyen and Li, 2020 によるスティグマと認知症に関する文献のシステマティックレビューにおいて、認知症に関する限られた知識、否定的な信念、恐怖などの感情が研究参加者に示されており、認知症に対する行動や態度の変化を促すことは困難[21]
  • 特に一般市民が認知症に対して中程度の理解しか持っていない場合[22]、認知症の人がより社会的に受け入れられるための効果的な戦略は優先事項であると認識されている[20]

Discussion

… Additionally, significant control over individuals diagnosed with dementia was perceived as necessary even with early stage dementia. They highlighted that knowledge and personal contact do not necessarily translate to specifically supportive responses. As such these attitudes have the potential to escalate to stigma and misconceptions about dementia. In a recent systematic review of the literature on stigma and dementia, Nguyen and Li, 2020 found that participants across studies demonstrated limited knowledge, negative beliefs and emotions such as fear associated with dementia. We know that the promotion of behaviour change and attitudes towards dementia is challenging [21], in particular when the general public only have a moderate understanding of dementia [22], hence effective strategies to facilitate greater social inclusion for people with dementia is a recognised priority [20].

[21] Glynn RW, Shelley E, Lawlor BA. Public knowledge and understanding of dementia—evidence from a national survey in Ireland. Age and Ageing. 2017;46(5):865–9. pmid:28531240
[22] Cahill S, Pierce M, Werner P, Darley A, Bobersky A. A systematic review of the public’s knowledge and understanding of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. 2015;29(3):255–75. pmid:26207322

  • De Vriesら[19]によると、ニュージーランドの医療従事者が認知症の専門教育を受けたとしても、回答者のADQスコアに差はない
  • Rosatoら [20]によると、キャンペーンによって認知度が向上しても、認知症に対する個人的な嫌悪感が高く、それは知識や接触と逆相関している
  • Nguyen and Li, 2020 によるスティグマと認知症に関する文献のシステマティックレビューにおいて、認知症に関する限られた知識、否定的な信念、恐怖などの感情が研究参加者に示されており、認知症に対する行動や態度の変化を促すことは困難[21]
  • 特に一般市民が認知症に対して中程度の理解しか持っていない場合[22]、認知症の人がより社会的に受け入れられるための効果的な戦略は優先事項であると認識されている[20]

Discussion

In this study the content of the dementia game was determined by people living with dementia through the sharing of their personal experiences [23]. Co-design allowed their priorities of misconceptions to be directly addressed and to be disseminated through a short digital game. If we consider gamification in a pedagogical context, it provides a credible alternative to traditional teaching methods [24]. Serious digital gaming such as www.dementiagame.com provides a fresh approach to learning and enhancing understanding, one which encourages engagement, motivation, and the promotion of learning and problem solving skills [25]. Advocates of digital games value their accessibility and convenience [26]. …

[23] Mitchell G, McTurk V, Carter G, Brown Wilson C. Exploring Perceptions of Dementia in Northern Ireland. In Review BMC Geriatrics. 2020; pmid:33272207
[24] Raed S. Alsawaier. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology. 2017;35(1).
[25] Karl M. Kapp. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction Fieldbook: Ideas into Practice. New York: Wiley; 2014.
[26] Lee JH, Holmes D, Lobe B. Media format matters: Users’ perceptions of physical versus digital games. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2016;53(1):1–10.

  • 認知症ゲームの内容は、認知症の人が個人的な経験を共有することで決定された[23]
  • ゲーミフィケーションを教育的な文脈で考えると、従来の教育方法に代わる信頼できる方法[24]
  • シリアスなデジタルゲーミフィケーションは、関与、モチベーション、学習と問題解決のスキルの促進を促す[25]
  • デジタルゲームの支持者は、そのアクセスのしやすさと便利さを評価している [26]

Discussion

… If the game takes a relatively short time to complete, it can encourage multiple plays and ultimately could reach a wide population [27, 28]. As demonstrated in this study a large number of participants were recruited in a short time period through social media, and due to the recruitment strategy it is highly likely that they were either undergraduate or postgraduate students, the majority being aged 18–34 as would be expected for this population [29]. Hence it could be argued then whether the digital game would be appropriate for, and also reach an older demographic not within academia. Nonetheless, a significant number of older adults now embrace smart and social technology to socialise, to connect and to educate [30], and following the impact of COVID-19, the information technology skills have advanced for many, with online mediums being accessed and used by a record number of people [31].

[27] Sandbrook C, Adams WM, Monteferri B. Digital Games and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Letters. 2015;8(2):118–24.
[28] Jones RD. Developing Video Game Literacy in the EFL Classroom: A Qualitative Analysis. Germany: Narr Franke Attempto Verlag; 2018.
[29] Higher Education Student Statistics. UK, 2017/18—Student numbers and characteristics 2019 [Available from: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/17-01-2019/sb252-higher-education-student-statistics/numbers.
[30] Ofcom. Adults’ media use and attitudes 2017 [Available from: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/102755/adults-media-use-attitudes-2017.pdf.
[31] Ofcom. Online Nation 2020 [Available from: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/internet-and-on-demand-research/online-nation.

  • ゲームにかかる時間が比較的短ければ、何度もプレイすることを促し、最終的には幅広い層にリーチすることができる [27, 28]
  • ソーシャルメディアを通じて短期間で募集され、大多数は18-34歳であった [29]
  • 学問の世界にいない高齢者層に適しているかどうか、また、そのような層にリーチできるかどうかは、議論の余地がある
  • 高齢者はスマートテクノロジーやソーシャルテクノロジーを受け入れており[30]、COVID-19の影響を受けてオンライン媒体にアクセスし使用する人の数は多くなっている[31]

Discussion

This study has shown the impact of the prototype of a short dementia game on the public. Nonetheless, future research will be needed to test the effectiveness of the Dementia Game in a full Randomised Control Trial (RCT). In order to reach a more diverse population the provision of different ‘gaming levels’ to address perceptions of the general public, family carers, and healthcare professionals towards dementia is recommended. Although the game has been demonstrated for adults, there is potential to amend the format to educate the younger population using such a novel approach. Due to the online medium of the game the format could also be replicated in other countries including low and middle income counties to help to address public attitudes to dementia [22].

  • 短時間の認知症ゲームのプロトタイプが一般市民に与える影響を示した
  • 今後、認知症ゲームの有効性を完全なランダム化比較試験(RCT)で検証することが必要
  • 認知症に対する一般市民、家族介護者、医療従事者の認知度に合わせた様々なレベルのゲーム
  • 低・中所得国を含む他の国でも複製することができる[22]

Discussion Strengths and limitations

Recruitment to the study using social media was particularly successful. Despite the large number of respondents who did not complete the follow-up ADQ, the study sample size was still significantly greater than that determined by the power calculation of 44 matched pairs, instead we achieved 457 matched pairs. Therefore, we have very strong evidence to indicate any difference in scores was not by chance. Nonetheless, due to the recruitment strategy it is highly likely that the sample reached was largely homogeneous with undergraduate or postgraduate students from one UK university, and only those who were actively following social media, thus limiting generalisability to the larger population. Following completion of data collection, the dementia game is still accessible, and up to August 2021 has been played over 4000 times.

  • SNSを利用したリクルートメントが成功
  • サンプルサイズが大きい
  • 大学の大学生だけだった可能性が高い

Discussion Strengths and limitations

The pretest-postest design does not have a control or comparison group, hence the internal validity is subject to threats, but it was a pragmatic and cost-effective way to examine the study outcomes, and determine an extension of the research to a RCT. As discussed earlier due to the content being co-designed by people living with dementia this strengthens the content validity of the game.

  • プリテスト・ポストデザインの場合、対照群や比較群がないため、内的妥当性は脅かされる可能性がある
  • 研究成果を検証し、RCTへの研究の拡張を決定するための実用的で費用対効果の高い方法であった

Conclusions

The use of a serious digital game has demonstrated a significant positive effect on the respondents’ perceptions of dementia. Overall, there was a greater optimistic view of the abilities of people with dementia and what might be achieved by them, and they were more likely to be recognised as unique individuals with the same values as any other person. Digital gaming has the potential to reach a wide audience and is suitable as a tool to enhance understanding of dementia and improve perception, but further research is needed to reach a more diverse population and test as a RCT to provide definitive evidence for use in policy and practice.

  • シリアスなデジタルゲームが、回答者の認知症に対する認識に大きなプラスの効果があることが実証された
  • 認知症の人の能力について、より楽観的な見方がなされ、他の人と同じ価値観を持つユニークな個人として認識される

解析

ここで行っているのは

  • サンプルサイズ計算
  • t検定とχ二乗検定

だけです。

サンプルサイズ

The sample size was calculated using the software G*Power 3.1.9.4 [13, 14]. Assuming p < 0.05 and a power of 0.9, the required number of participants to observe an effect size of 0.5 in the attitudes towards dementia was calculated to be 44 matched pairs.

library(WebPower)
wp.t(alpha = 0.05,
  power = 0.9,
  d = 0.5,
  type = "paired",
  alternative = "two.sided")
## Paired t-test
## 
##            n   d alpha power
##     43.99551 0.5  0.05   0.9
## 
## NOTE: n is number of *pairs*
## URL: http://psychstat.org/ttest
library(WebPower)
wp.correlation(alpha = 0.05,
  power = 0.9,
  r = 0.5,
  alternative = "two.sided")
## Power for correlation
## 
##            n   r alpha power
##     36.87137 0.5  0.05   0.9
## 
## URL: http://psychstat.org/correlation

Table 1

R で再現

library(haven)
dfPOne <- read_sav("data/pone.0257337.s001.sav")
dfPOne1 <- subset(dfPOne, T0_AND_T1completed == "1")
dfPOne1$CODE_Age <- factor(dfPOne1$CODE_Age)
##                                            
##                                             Overall    
##   n                                         457        
##   CODE_Age (%)                                         
##      1                                      233 (51.0) 
##      2                                      124 (27.1) 
##      3                                       57 (12.5) 
##      4                                       36 ( 7.9) 
##      5                                        7 ( 1.5) 
##   CODE_gender (%)                                      
##      0                                       29 ( 6.3) 
##      1                                      427 (93.4) 
##      3                                        1 ( 0.2) 
##   CODE_Ethnicity (%)                                   
##      1                                      434 (95.0) 
##      2                                        5 ( 1.1) 
##      3                                       15 ( 3.3) 
##      4                                        2 ( 0.4) 
##      5                                        1 ( 0.2) 
##   CODE_PersonalExperienceOfDementia = 1 (%) 171 (37.6) 
##   CODE_WorkingExperience = 1 (%)            208 (45.5) 
##   CODE_DementiaTraining = 1 (%)             253 (55.4)

R で再現

##                                            
##                                             Overall    
##   n                                         457        
##   CODE_Age (%)                                         
##      1                                      233 (51.0) 
##      2                                      124 (27.1) 
##      3                                       57 (12.5) 
##      4                                       36 ( 7.9) 
##      5                                        7 ( 1.5) 
##   CODE_gender (%)                                      
##      0                                       29 ( 6.3) 
##      1                                      427 (93.4) 
##      3                                        1 ( 0.2) 
##   CODE_Ethnicity (%)                                   
##      1                                      434 (95.0) 
##      2                                        5 ( 1.1) 
##      3                                       15 ( 3.3) 
##      4                                        2 ( 0.4) 
##      5                                        1 ( 0.2) 
##   CODE_PersonalExperienceOfDementia = 1 (%) 171 (37.6) 
##   CODE_WorkingExperience = 1 (%)            208 (45.5) 
##   CODE_DementiaTraining = 1 (%)             253 (55.4)

Tables 2 and 3

t.test(dfPOne1$T0_TOTAL_SCORE, dfPOne1$T1_TOTAL_SCORE, paired = TRUE)
## 
##  Paired t-test
## 
## data:  dfPOne1$T0_TOTAL_SCORE and dfPOne1$T1_TOTAL_SCORE
## t = -10.372, df = 456, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
##  -3.146744 -2.144285
## sample estimates:
## mean of the differences 
##               -2.645514

Tables 2 and 3

dfTemp1 <- subset(dfPOne1, CODE_PersonalExperienceOfDementia == "0")
ttestSub1 <- t.test(dfTemp1$T0_TOTAL_SCORE, 
                    dfTemp1$T1_TOTAL_SCORE, 
                    paired = TRUE)

dfTemp2 <- subset(dfPOne1, CODE_PersonalExperienceOfDementia == "1")
ttestSub2 <- t.test(dfTemp2$T0_TOTAL_SCORE, 
                    dfTemp2$T1_TOTAL_SCORE, 
                    paired = TRUE)

Tables 2 and 3

Total ADQ score t p
“I have a family member or close friend living with dementia”
No (n = 284 ) 79.4859155 -7.7349956 1.827719^{-13}
82.2676056
Yes (n = 171 ) 79.754386 -7.2823226 1.1672139^{-11}
82.128655

この表は、以下のようなインラインコードを使っています。

  • `r mean(dfTemp1$T0_TOTAL_SCORE)`
  • `r ttestSub1$statistic`
  • `r ttestSub1$p.value`

Rで再現

Rで再現

                         | Total ADQ score | t | p |
“I have a family member or close friend living with dementia” | | | |
No (n = 284 ) | 79.4859155 | -7.7349956 | 1.827719^{-13} |
                            | 82.2676056 | | |
Yes (n = 171 ) | 79.754386 | -7.2823226 | 1.1672139^{-11} |
                            | 82.128655 | | |

Rで再現

Total ADQ score t p
“I work with people living with dementia”
No (n = 249 ) 78.7188755 -8.0428807 3.6159801^{-14}
81.5702811
Yes (n = 208 ) 80.6442308 -6.5523247 4.4120382^{-10}
83.0432692

Rで再現

Total ADQ score t p
“I have completed training/ education about dementia”
No (n = 204 ) 77.8480392 -6.2738799 2.0883935^{-9}
80.5294118
Yes (n = 253 ) 81.0039526 -8.5353036 1.3301318^{-15}
83.6205534

まとめ

  • シリアスゲーム(ゲーミフィケーション)の検証
  • 対照群のない、前後比較
  • SPSSでのt検定、χ二乗検定をRで再現