Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Use of gamification strategies and tactics in mobile applications for smoking cessation: a review of the UK mobile app market
  1. Nikita B Rajani1,
  2. Dominik Weth2,
  3. Nikolaos Mastellos1,
  4. Filippos T Filippidis1
  1. 1Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Strategy and Innovation, MSU Consulting GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Nikita B Rajani; nikita.rajani14{at}imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective Mobile phone-based interventions have been proven to be effective tools for smoking cessation, at least in the short term. Gamification, that is, the use of game-design elements in a non-game context, has been associated with increased engagement and motivation, critical success factors for long-term success of mobile Health solutions. However, to date, no app review has examined the use of gamification in smoking cessation mobile apps. Our review aims to examine and quantify the use of gamification strategies (broad principles) and tactics (on-screen features) among existing mobile apps for smoking cessation in the UK.

Methods The UK Android and iOS markets were searched in February 2018 to identify smoking cessation apps. 125 Android and 15 iOS apps were tested independently by two reviewers for primary functionalities, adherence to Five A smoking cessation guidelines, and adoption of gamification strategies and tactics. We examined differences between platforms with χ2 tests. Correlation coefficients were calculated to explore the relationship between adherence to guidelines and gamification.

Results The most common functionality of the 140 mobile apps we reviewed allowed users to track the days since/until the quit date (86.4%). The most popular gamification strategy across both platforms was performance feedback (91.4%). The majority of apps adopted a medium level of gamification strategies (55.0%) and tactics (64.3%). Few adopted high levels of gamification strategies (6.4%) or tactics (5.0%). No statistically significant differences between the two platforms were found regarding level of gamification (p>0.05) and weak correlations were found between adherence to Five A’s and gamification strategies (r=0.38) and tactics (r=0.26).

Conclusion The findings of this review show that a high level of gamification is adopted by a small minority of smoking cessation apps in the UK. Further exploration of the use of gamification in smoking cessation apps may provide insights into its role in smoking cessation.

  • smoking cessation
  • gamification
  • mobile applications
  • mHealth

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors NBR conducted the mobile app review and produced the first draft of the paper. DW acted as a second reviewer and helped consolidate the results of the review. FTF and NM provided guidance on the overall methodology of the review and revised the manuscript for content. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results, read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Primary data were collected and analysed by the authors from publicly available sources. No participants were involved nor was an intervention administered. No ethical approval was required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All data were extracted from mobile apps available to download on iOS and Google stores. Details of the extracted data are available by the authors upon request.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.