Pioneering Ideas

New Journal Represents Leap Forward for Health Video Games

Recently, we were thrilled to learn about the launch of a new peer-reviewed publication focused on health video games in the fall. Exploring how video games can be used to drive positive health outcomes for millions of people is something we’ve invested in for quite some time, through both our Health Games Research national program and the annual Games for Health Conference, which just wrapped-up its seventh conference last May.

According to Pioneer Senior Program Officer Paul Tarini, the launch of this journal represents a big step forward for the field: "There's an increasing number of people who are interested in the question of whether games work, how well they work, and what makes them work," Tarini said in a post on NewsWorks. "If we weren't beginning to see a critical mass of people who are interested in those questions, we wouldn't see somebody saying. 'I think it's time for a journal.' "

As the first-ever peer-reviewed publication that focuses on this emerging field, Games for Health: Research, Development, and Clinical Applications (G4H), published my Mary Ann Liebert, Inc,  will help build an evidence base of effective interventions,  which  developers can use to build the next generation of health video games. As stated on the blog Gamification  by Health Games Research National Program Director Debra Lieberman: “The Journal will be a starting point for anyone interested in the research and design of health games that integrate well-tested, evidence-based behavioral health strategies to help improve health behaviors and to support the delivery of care.”

Lieberman and several other Health Games Research grantees will serve on the journal’s editorial board and will help shape its direction. Their years of experience studying the impacts of video games on health and deep knowledge of the subject matter will greatly benefit this groundbreaking publication’s body of research.

How do you think video games can impact health? Are there any specific topics you would like to see the journal provide more insight into? Leave a comment and let us know your thoughts. 

 

Drug Facts Boxes Featured in New York Times

Last week, the New York Times published an op-ed by the Dartmouth Institute’s Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz that discussed the critical need for a redesign of something that can empower consumers to make informed decisions about their health care – the information that accompanies prescription drugs. As stated in their own words: “Bombarded with pharmaceutical ads listing what seems like every conceivable side effect, American consumers might think they are already getting too much information. But they — and their doctors — are not getting what arguably matters most: independent, plain-English facts about the medication.”

Prescription medication labels are hard to read, confusing and often leave out crucial information contained in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review documents. Major side effects or potentially dangerous drug interactions can be hidden to patients on their medication packaging. By giving drug packages a simple makeover and creating a standardized, easy-to-read drug fact box—akin to what’s currently required for nutrition labels—information that is critical to enabling an individual to make the best health care decisions possible will be readily available to all.

Woloshin and Schwartz are leading the charge on the effort to develop these “Prescription Drug Facts Boxes.” Recognizing the opportunity for a simple design change to create better access to information and have a big impact on how people engage with their health care, we have been supporting their efforts since 2008. You can read more about that support here. This idea was simple and powerful enough to be included in the health care reform law.

Policymakers say that an additional three years of study are needed before beginning to implement the facts box. To me, it’s unclear what more they will learn in those three years. I don’t think it’s the lack of an evidence base. Woloshin and Schwartz have done a number of good studies about the efficacy and adding to them should not take three years. I don’t think it’s figuring out how to operationalize the production, a hand book is easily developable. I do think it’s a combination of two important factors: an underrepresented constituency and an overly strong concern for the potential adverse impact of any change.

The underrepresented constituency is the consumer. We are already given information about the intent of the drug and the dangers. The perception is then that the only thing the drug box adds is the ability to make a more informed choice. And that’s not seen as very important. Given that, it’s easy to see why the potential downside of the change needs so much study. If you don’t weight the value very highly, you need to be very sure that there are no “adverse events”.

That’s wrong. We’re being told (and in some cases, compelled) to take more individual responsibility for our health. Being denied access to clear and actionable information is wrong.