Comparative effectiveness of game-based learning modalities in nursing and medical education: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Game-based learning (GBL) is increasingly used in healthcare education, but educators must choose among diverse modalities (e.g., quiz platforms, apps, serious games and metaverse environments). Comparative evidence on which modalities perform best across learning domains (knowledge, attitudes, and practice) remains limited. AIM: To compare the effects of distinct GBL modalities on knowledge, attitudes, and practice outcomes in nursing and medical education and to explore whether comparative effects differ by learner group (pre-licensure students and in-service professionals). DESIGN: PRISMA-NMA-aligned systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched eight databases and trial registries through September 2, 2024, for randomized controlled trials comparing GBL with traditional teaching (TT). Outcomes were transformed to a 0-100 scale and analysed as change from baseline in Bayesian consistency models; random-effects models were selected using deviance information criterion (DIC). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. We report mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) versus TT, ranking probabilities, and subgroup NMAs by learner group. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs (n = 3439) were included; 15 contributed complete data to the network. Risk of bias was low in 15 trials and raised some concerns in 16. The network was modest for knowledge (11 trials) and sparse for attitudes (3) and practice (4). Compared with TT, metaverse-based learning showed improved attitudes (MD 15; 95% CrI 12 to 18), based on a single trial. For knowledge and practice, Kahoot-based quizzes (MD 9.1; 95% CrI -8.9 to 27) and app-based learning (MD 4.6; 95% CrI -4.4 to 14) had the highest estimated mean improvements, but credible intervals were wide and included the null for most comparisons. Subgroup rankings differed by learner group, but several comparisons were imprecise and uncertainty was substantial, particularly in sparse networks. CONCLUSIONS: GBL modalities may improve learning outcomes compared with TT, but relative effects appear domain-specific and the certainty of rankings is limited by sparse evidence and imprecision. Future trials should prioritise head-to-head comparisons, robust outcome measurement, and longer-term retention and transfer outcomes in both student and in-service populations.