Evidence mapPaperPMID 42234926Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2026

Gamified Assessment of Cognitive Impulsivity in Eating Disorders and Mental Ill-Health: Mixed Methods Study Incorporating Lived Experience Co-Design and Evaluation.

Emily Colton, Courtney McLean, Alexandra Anderson, Lauren Hanegraaf, Antonio Verdejo-Garcia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emily ColtonSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5873-3301
Courtney McLeanSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3896-2419
Alexandra AndersonSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9976-0725
Lauren HanegraafSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3243-2708
Antonio Verdejo-GarciaSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8874-9339

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cognitive impulsivity is a multifaceted construct associated with symptom severity, functional impairment, and poor quality of life in eating disorders (EDs) and mental ill-health. However, objective assessment of cognitive impulsivity is piecemeal and complex, with many assessment tools lacking psychometric evaluation and ecological validity. Furthermore, validated assessment tools are rarely perceived to be engaging or meaningful by individuals who complete them, limiting their utility in research and forming a barrier to clinical translation. Thus, although cognitive impulsivity predicts treatment engagement and outcomes, it is rarely assessed or addressed in a clinical context. Objective: We aimed to redesign and evaluate the Cognitive Impulsivity Suite (CIS), a validated gamified assessment battery of cognitive impulsivity, through user-centered co-design, agile game development, and user-centered evaluation. This collaborative study partnered researchers with individuals with lived experiences (LEs) of EDs and commonly co-occurring mental ill-health, and game development experts. Methods: In a sequential mixed methods design, we first defined user requirements through inductive thematic analysis of data from 2 focus groups incorporating 7 individuals with LE of EDs and commonly co-occurring mental health conditions (mean age 27.6, SD 7.03 y; 4 women, 2 men, 1 nonbinary), researchers, clinicians, and technology professionals. Agile game development was achieved through 6-week-long sprints, involving game developers and a play-testing team of researchers. During LE evaluation, we collected and analyzed data from an expanded sample (n=18; mean age 30.5, SD 6.56 y; 12 women, 3 men, 2 nonbinary), using a pragmatic blending of qualitative and quantitative research methods. This included inductive and deductive thematic analysis of "thinking aloud" data, descriptive statistics, and ANOVA tests of the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale, short version (GUESS-18) surveys. Results: We co-designed guiding principles and ideas for aesthetics, story concepts, and gameplay features, which closely aligned with leading theories of psychological well-being, clinical evidence concerning ED recovery, and gamification frameworks. Qualitative evaluations of the new tool, CIS Papillon Park, showed user engagement and motivation were driven by opportunities for autonomy, personal accomplishment, and simulated interpersonal relationships, aligning with approaches to gamification based on self-determination theory. In quantitative evaluation, a mean GUESS-18 composite score of 45.9 (SD 9.85) showed CIS Papillon Park achieved sound overall user satisfaction, with subscale scores revealing strengths in usability, narrative, visual and audio aesthetics, and personal gratification. Conclusions: The contributions of this study are grounded in its integration of user-centered co-design and evaluation, agile game development, and theory-driven approaches to cognitive assessment and gamification, to redesign and evaluate a validated online task battery. The resulting CIS Papillon Park combines appealing aesthetics, gamification elements that address cognitive, emotional, and social needs, and accessible playing experiences, which maximized user satisfaction and engagement while prioritizing psychological safety. Next steps involve psychometric evaluation and dissemination.

Indexed as

cognitive assessmentcognitive impulsivityeating disordersgamificationlived experience co-designthematic analysisuser-centred design

Identifiers

PMID42234926
PMCPMC13232921

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.