OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we aimed to measure and analyze 4 dimensions of pervasive games through development, technology, experience, and evaluation. Moreover, we also aimed to discover and interpret their relationship with game, interaction, experience, and service design.
METHODS: We first chose 3 well-known databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO, and searched from 2013 to April 2022. A strictly thorough Boolean search for research keywords such as "pervasive game," "design," and "interactive" resulted in 394 relevant articles. These articles were identified, screened, and checked for eligibility to find valid and useful articles, which were then categorized and analyzed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method.
RESULTS: The systematic selection was finally left with 40 valid and valuable articles. After categorization and analysis, all articles were classified according to 4 main themes, which were design and development (11/40, 28%), interaction and technology (15/40, 38%), users and experience (9/40, 23%), and evaluation and service (5/40, 13%). These 4 main areas can be subdivided into several smaller areas.
CONCLUSIONS: In the 4 areas of game design, interaction design, experience design, and service design, many scholars have studied pervasive games and made contributions. Although the development and technology of pervasive games have evolved with the times, there is still a need to strengthen emerging design concepts within pervasive games.
METHODS: In Study 1, we initiated the translation of the SAS-2 into Chinese. This assessment involved bilingual Chinese students proficient in both English and Chinese. Additionally, we conducted a cross-linguistic measurement invariance analysis. In Study 2, we delved into the psychometric properties of the Chinese SAS-2 using a sample of Chinese student athletes. This examination encompassed an evaluation of its factor structure, convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance across genders.
RESULTS: Our findings in Study 1 indicated no significant differences in item scores between the Chinese SAS-2 and the English version, and measurement invariance across languages. In Study 2, we uncovered that the Chinese SAS-2 and its factors exhibited excellent reliability, with Cronbach's alpha values exceeding 0.80. Confirmatory factor analyses upheld the original three-factor model, demonstrating acceptable model fit indices (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08). Furthermore, all three factors of the Chinese SAS-2 displayed significant and positive correlations with athlete burnout and State-Trait anxiety. Additionally, this study elucidated the mediating role of Concentration Disruption (Somatic anxiety and Concentration Disruption) in the relationship between the Trait (State) anxiety, and athlete burnout. Moreover, we identified measurement invariance of the Chinese version of the SAS-2 across genders. Finally, female college athletes exhibited significantly higher scores in somatic anxiety and worry compared to their male counterparts.
DISCUSSION: In sum, our findings affirm that the Chinese version of the SAS-2 demonstrates robust reliability and correlates effectively with related criteria, thus validating its suitability for use in a Chinese context.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2- period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. All 28 adult male subjects were required to fast for at least 10 hours prior to drug administration and they were given access to water ad libitum during this period. Thirty minutes prior to dosing, all subjects were served with a standardized high-fat and high-calorie breakfast with a total calorie of 1000 kcal which was in accordance to the EMA Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Subsequently, subjects were administered either the test or reference preparation with 240mL of plain water in the first trial period. During the second trial period, they received the alternate preparation. Plasma levels of glibenclamide and metformin were analysed separately using two different high performance liquid chromatography methods.
RESULTS: The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax of the test preparation over those of the reference preparation were 0.9693-1.0739, 0.9598- 1.0561 and 0.9220 - 1.0642 respectively. Throughout the study period, no serious drug reaction was observed. However, a total of 26 adverse events (AE)/side effects were reported, including 24 that were definitely related to the study drugs, namely giddiness (n=17), while diarrheoa (n=3), headache (n=2) and excessive hunger (n=2) were less commonly reported by the subjects.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the test preparation is bioequivalent to the reference preparation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients' symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04920942.