- Department of Humanities, University of Macerata, Macerata, Italy
Introduction: The increase in the average age of the population has resulted in a greater focus on interventions designed to facilitate successful Ageing. Notwithstanding its potential, the strategy of the board game remains relatively underexplored. This study aims to ascertain its role in fostering older people’s well-being. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the level of well-being associated with the gaming experience is greater than overall well-being, particularly when the level of difficulty is low.
Methods: From an initial number of 164 participants, a total of 132 older people made up the final sample (Mage = 74.05; SD = 5.62). They were divided into groups of four or five individuals and engaged in a gaming session of varying levels of difficulty: low (N = 44), medium(N = 49) and high (N = 36). Prior to each game session, participants completed a questionnaire regarding their general well-being. After the game session, they filled out a similar questionnaire regarding their well-being while gaming.
Results: The results showed that the level of well-being experienced while playing was significantly higher than that observed in daily life, F(1,131) = 14.604, p = 0.000,
Discussion: Board games with an appropriate level of difficulty can be useful tools for promoting wellbeing in the older population. Future studies and possible interventions for people in the third and fourth ages will be discussed.
1 Introduction
Aging is a natural, complex, and heterogeneous phenomenon that involves many aspects of human beings (WHO, 2020) and affects an increasing number of people. WHO estimates that by 2050, one in five people in the world will be over 60 years old, and the number of people over 80 will double (WHO, 2022). Life expectancy is increasing worldwide, making it necessary to manage and promote health among the older population.
1.1 Aging
Globally, aging is one of the most relevant current challenges from both health (e.g., cognitive decline, medical diseases, Dogra et al., 2022) and socioeconomic perspectives (Belachew et al., 2024). Health complications in older people make it imperative to find adequate and sustainable responses to ensure the well-being and quality of life of older people (Marquez et al., 2020). Aging is associated not only with physical decline but also with social and emotional challenges (Gates et al., 2020). For example, as older people experience reduced physical mobility, they may be at increasing risk of having lower autonomy levels and perceived low control over their lives (Nyende et al., 2023; Ylönen et al., 2024). In addition, they may have lost friends and relatives, be isolated, and have a reduction or lack of positive social relationships, leading to negative feelings and loneliness. These situations can negatively impact perceptions of well-being and quality of life (Abu Elheja et al., 2021). Thus, older people can be at risk of a decline in psychological well-being (Buecker et al., 2023), and interventions to support them and their health are strongly recommended (Luke et al., 2024).
1.2 Active aging
In line with these considerations, the active aging perspective recognizes the aging process not only as a physical and cognitive decline but also as an opportunity to optimize individuals’ health and improve quality of life (WHO, 2020) through promoting enjoyment, satisfaction, social fulfillment, and well-being (Goodwin et al., 2023). Indeed, according to the WHO (1948), health is not only the absence of disease but the result of a positive interaction between physical, mental, and social dimensions (Engel, 1977). In other words, health concerns the positive perception of one’s general state of physical, psychological, and relational well-being. Interventions to promote successful aging aim to foster psychophysical well-being by promoting healthy lifestyles, such as good nutrition, physical activity, cognitive stimulation, and social participation (Belachew et al., 2024). Several studies found that living in one’s own home for as long as possible (Ylönen et al., 2024), having autonomy in making life choices, and being able to use urban and extra-urban green spaces contribute to a sense of security, opportunities for social interaction, and well-being in older people (Fowler Davis et al., 2024; Hodgson et al., 2023; Sixsmith et al., 2023). Other research has found that expressive and creative activities such as art, dance, and yoga have positive effects on both cognitive and socio-affective dimensions (Chiang et al., 2024; Crealey et al., 2023; McQuade and O’Sullivan, 2023; Wang et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Azman et al., 2017). The literature highlights that active aging interventions have multiple beneficial outcomes, including improved physical function, cognitive function, mental health, social health, and sleep (Dogra et al., 2022). Active aging interventions are associated with life satisfaction (Marsillas et al., 2017), positive quality of life (Cunningham et al., 2020), good social relationships, and well-being (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2020; Cresswell-Smith et al., 2019). Therefore, research into new strategies to foster well-being for older people is strongly encouraged and recommended, and board games can be used for this purpose.
1.3 Game-based activities and well-being
Play has always been an integral part of human culture, so much so that it can be considered one of the most important human experiences, extending well beyond childhood. Engaging in play is vital for physical, mental, and emotional well-being, serving as a powerful stimulus from cognitive, social, emotional, and ethical perspectives (Bruner et al., 1976; Piaget, 1945; Vygotskij, 1934; Winnicott, 1971). In addition, playing is considered a powerful tool to increase individuals’ intrinsic motivation (Caillois, 1958) and achieve a mental state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), especially when games are designed with an appropriate level of difficulty (Hattie et al., 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2020; Ryan et al., 2006; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
For example, Gerling et al. (2012) suggested that games for older people should be easy to understand to facilitate interaction without adding to cognitive load. In line with this, Skjæret-Maroni et al. (2016) found a slight decrease in performance when participants transitioned from the first to the second difficulty level of an exergame, indicating a potential decline in motivation and an increase in mind wandering (Thomson et al., 2015), which contrasts with the flow state. Furthermore, Chen and Janicki (2020) found that older participants felt proud and satisfied after engaging in a challenging game, emphasizing that personal experiences with board games significantly influence outcomes: mastering a game is positively associated with achieving a state of flow (Hodent, 2017).
For these reasons, adequate game-based activities may be a useful strategy to promote active aging (Aguirre-Cardona and Mendoza-Espinel, 2022).
Most interventions implemented through games are based on digital games (Afridi et al., 2021; Alhasan et al., 2017; Ayed et al., 2019; Campo-Prieto et al., 2021). Literature has shown that digital games have a positive impact on cognitive functioning (Anguera et al., 2021; Bonnechère et al., 2021; Torres, 2011; Hou and Li, 2022) and contribute to reducing feelings of social isolation and symptoms of depression (Cicek et al., 2020; de Morais et al., 2020; Antunes et al., 2017; Khosravi et al., 2016), as well as increasing individuals’ self-efficacy (Czaja et al., 2018) and well-being (Kaufman et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021; Mclaughlin et al., 2018; Seah et al., 2018).
However, the majority of older people spend their time with non-digital forms of gaming (Mortenson et al., 2017). Studies have shown that non-digital forms of gaming lead to benefits in terms of socialization, quality of life, depression symptoms, and feelings of loneliness (Hallgren et al., 2020; Mortenson et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2023). Within this group of games are the board games. Although they are used more as an extended strategy to counteract cognitive decline and train cognitive functions (Ching-Teng, 2019; Estrada-Plana et al., 2021; Chen and Tsai, 2022) or to reduce negative psychopathological symptoms (e.g., depression, Lee et al., 2020), some studies have investigated the role of board games in promoting physical and psychological health.
Indeed, board games are considered useful tools to improve people’s health (e.g., Nakao, 2019; Gauthier et al., 2019), and positive results have been obtained in older people. Diniz et al. (2022) obtained positive results using a board game to prevent falls in older people, which are very common and dangerous in this population, while Tsai et al. (2024) designed a board game that was effective in increasing knowledge, attitudes and preventive behaviors regarding osteoporosis. Board games are also seen as a way of socializing; older people consider playing an opportunity to spend time and create new social relations (Cousins and Witcher, 2007) or to strengthen social relations (Outley and McKenzie, 2007). Consistent results have also been found by Chen and Tsai (2022); they conducted research aimed at investigating the effectiveness of board games in improving interpersonal communication, interpersonal relationships, and self-efficacy, as well as reducing loneliness. The board game involved four life themes (thank you, sorry, love, and goodbye) and took place in a center for older people for 4 weeks. The results showed significant improvements in interpersonal communication, self-efficacy, and perceived loneliness at the end of the intervention, suggesting that board games should be used in projects aimed at promoting the well-being of older people.
In contrast, Estrada-Plana et al. (2021) found a different result in their study; they conducted a pilot study that included 35 participants who played modern board and card games (experimental group) or performed paper-pencil cognitive tasks (control group) to investigate the effects of board games on executive functions, depressive symptoms and quality of life in healthy older people aged 65 years and over. The intervention sessions took place twice a week for 5 weeks. They showed that board and card games can effectively stimulate cognitive functions but not satisfaction with the health or quality of family relationships. However, according to the authors, the type of game played and different sample compositions may explain the results. More recently, Bodner et al. (2024) investigated the effect of a make-believe game on the well-being and loneliness of older people; they used this board game for 3 months (once a week) in small groups of 4 or 5 people and found that, unlike participants in the control group, older people who played the Kioku board game showed increased well-being and reduced feelings of loneliness.
To conclude, board games may contribute significantly to promoting health, stimulating cognitive functions, and strengthening social relationships among older people. They appear to serve as a valuable coping strategy that can help older individuals manage the challenges associated with aging, such as physical illnesses, cognitive decline, and social isolation, ultimately fostering their overall well-being.
1.4 The present study
The older population is constantly increasing, resulting in demographic, epidemiological, and anthropological changes (WHO, 2022). This demographic shift underscores the importance of adopting positive aging experiences. Several programs have been implemented to achieve this goal (Belachew et al., 2024), but few studies have investigated the role of play activities despite their positive effects from a cognitive, social, and emotional point of view (Chen and Tsai, 2022; Mortenson et al., 2017). This study fills this gap in the literature by exploring the role of board games in promoting well-being in older people, a psychological dimension related to positive aging (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2020; Cresswell-Smith et al., 2019).
Evidence from the literature shows that board games promote well-being in children (Dell’Angela et al., 2020; Gashaj et al., 2021; Zaharia et al., 2022) and young adults (Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018; Kloep et al., 2023), and have a positive impact on physical health, cognitive function and socialisation in older people (e.g., Bodner et al., 2024; Chen and Tsai, 2022; Diniz et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2020). Therefore, it was hypothesized that participation in board games would increase well-being in older people, i.e., gaming well-being is significantly higher than general well-being (H1). Furthermore, previous studies have found that a positive game experience is associated with an appropriate level of difficulty (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hattie et al., 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2020; Ryan et al., 2006), especially for games with a low level of difficulty and low cognitive effort (Gerling et al., 2012; Skjæret-Maroni et al., 2016) or with a challenging game (Chen and Janicki, 2020). Thus, it was expected that older people, novice players with low board game skills (Hodent, 2017), would experience high levels of well-being when playing a board game with an easy or medium level of difficulty (H2).
2 Methods
2.1 Participants and procedure
Data were collected as part of a larger investigation into the psychological and cognitive dimensions of play across the lifespan. The study was approved by the Ethical Commitment of the University of Macerata, and participants consented to take part in the study.
Based on a priori sample computation (repeated measure ANOVA: 3 ×2; power test: 0.8; effect size: 0.25; significant level: 0.005; type of effect: interaction effect), a sample of 157 people was planned. Thus, a total of 164 older people and members of Community Centres for the Third Age were invited to participate. Specifically, they were aged 65 years or over, according to the definition of older people by ISS (2014), and they were regular and active participants in the Community Centre’s activities, with no experience with board games (people with a diagnosis of dementia were not included in this study). Two team researchers went to the Community Centre (N = 12) to implement the study. They first introduced the research to inform older adults, obtained their consent to participate, and explained the data handling process. Then, the researchers invited the participants to form small groups of 4–5 people and sit around small tables to start the research session (1.5 h).
At the beginning, the participants filled out a questionnaire about their personal information and general well-being. Then, each group was given a board game to play. Three board games with different levels of complexity were used. Participants in the low-complexity condition played a game of chance, i.e., a game with simple rules and dependent on luck (N = 51). The medium complexity level had skill or learning games with rules that required participants to memorize new words, pay attention to symbols, or guess a name using deductions (N = 57). Participants who played the high-complexity game (N = 52) had a strategy game with rules such as working together to solve logical-mathematical puzzles, choosing the better way to play according to the situation, or acquiring clues to continue the game. At the end, participants answered a questionnaire about their well-being during the game and expressed their satisfaction with the experience. All older adults participated in the entire study session, but some participants did not answer all questions of the well-being questionnaire. Thus, the final sample consisted of 132 older people (Mage = 74.05 years old, SD = 5.62; Minage = 65; Maxage = 89) who played the board game of low (N = 44), medium (N = 49), and high (N = 36) difficulty.
2.2 Measures
2.2.1 Information about participants
To obtain general information about the participants, data were collected on gender, year of birth, nationality, retirement status (not retired; <1 year; <5 years; for 5 years; more than 5 years), marital status (single, married, divorced, widow/widower), number of sons/daughters and grandchildren. The level of education was also examined (primary school, middle school, high school, bachelor’s, master’s, postgraduate specialization). This variable was categorized as “educational level” with primary school equating to 5 years of education. Secondary school corresponded to 8 years of education and so on.
2.2.2 General well-being
The WHO-5 questionnaire (WHO, 1998) is a unidimensional measure of psychological well-being that refers to participants’ experiences over the last 2 weeks. It consists of five items: (1) I have felt cheerful and in good spirits; (2) I have felt calm and relaxed; (3) I have felt active and vigorous; (4) I woke up feeling fresh and rested; (5) My daily life has been filled with things that interest me. Participants indicate their level of agreement using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (always). The final score corresponds to the mean of each response, and a higher score corresponds to a better assessment of one’s well-being. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.857.
2.2.3 Gaming well-being
Game-related well-being results from an adaptation of the WHO-5 questionnaire (WHO, 1998). It proposes the same five questions about the participants’ feelings during the game: (1) I have felt cheerful and in good spirits; (2) I have felt calm and relaxed; (3) I have felt active and vigorous; (4) I have felt fresh and relaxed; (5) The game has been filled with things that interest me. Participants answered by using the 6-point Likert scale of WHO-5 (WHO, 1998), and the same scoring method was adopted. The reliability of the questionnaire was equal to 0.872.
2.2.4 Satisfaction questionnaire
The Satisfaction Questionnaire was an ad hoc instrument designed to explore participants’ level of satisfaction with their gaming experience. Using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), participants expressed their level of agreement with seven statements about feeling competent, having fun, enjoying spending time with friends, age appropriateness of the activity, interest, gratitude, and wanting to repeat the experience. The score on the satisfaction questionnaire is the mean score on the scale, which has a reliability of 0.592.
2.3 Data analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25. Descriptive and correlational analyses were performed between the main variables, and an ANOVA was conducted to know about group differences. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to identify differences between participants’ general well-being and gaming well-being. ANOVA analysis was also used to investigate differences in satisfaction according to the game’s complexity level.
3 Results
3.1 Descriptive and correlational data
Among the 132 participants (88 women, 44 men), 129 were Italian, while 2.3% had not provided the information. Regarding retirement status, 9.8% had been retired for 1 year, 7.6% for <5 years, 2.3% for 5 years, while 58.3% had been retired for more than 5 years (9.1% were not retired and 12.2% were missing). Responses regarding marital status indicated that 6.1% of participants were single, 53.8% were married, 7.6% were divorced, and 21.2% were widows/widowers. Table 1 summarizes the means and bivariate correlations between the main variables.
Concerning group composition (see Table 2), ANOVA analyses showed no differences among groups, except for participants’ age [F(2, 126) = 3.987, p = 0.021]. Specifically, participants who played with a low level of difficulty were older (M = 75.81; SD = 5.78) than participants who were in the highly difficult board game (M = 72.66; SD = 5.33; p = 0.031).
3.2 Well-being and gaming well-being
Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that general well-being (M = 2.82; SD = 1.15) was significantly lower than gaming well-being (M = 3.37; SD = 1.41) [F(1, 131) = 14.604, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.100].
An effect of board-game level of complexity was also found [F(1, 126) = 10.982, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.148]. Indeed, post-hoc analyses suggest that participants who played board games of easy, F(1, 126) = 13.967, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.098, or medium, F(1, 126) = 22.208, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.150, level of difficulty presented a gaming well-being significantly higher than general well-being. This difference was not significant in participants with highly difficult board games [F(1, 126) = 3.128, p = 0.079, η2 = 0.024]. Table 3 describes these results.
In addition, post-hoc analyses revealed that the general well-being of participants in easy (M = 2.81; SD = 1.27), medium (M = 2.75; SD = 1.16), and high (M = 2.90; SD = 1.06) levels of difficulty was not significantly different [F(2, 126) = 0.148, p = 0.862, η2 = 0.002]. Instead, participants’ gaming well-being changes according to the level of game difficulty [F(2, 126) = 13.459, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.176]. Results showed that participants who played a game of high level of difficulty had a level of gaming well-being (M = 2.43; SD = 1.48) lower than that of older people who played with medium (M = 3.81; SD = 1.85; p = 0.000) or easy levels of game difficulty (M = 3.69; SD = 1.18; p = 0.000). No differences in gaming well-being were found between participants who played with easy and medium levels of difficulty (p = 0.653).
Repeated analysis of ANOVA, controlling for age and educational level, revealed that well-being level did not significantly change from general to gaming experience: Fwell-being (1,119) = 0.012, p = 0.915, η2 = 0.000; FageXwell-being (1,119) = 0.09, p = 0.925, p2 = 0.000; FeducationalLevelXwell-being (1,119) = 1.22, p = 0.270, η2 = 0.010. However, the effect of board game level of difficulty was significant, F(2,119) = 11.740, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.165, and post-hoc analyses showed significant effects (see Table 4).
Gaming well-being was higher than general well-being when the board game had an easy, F(1,119) = 12.647, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.096, or medium level of difficulty, F(1,119) = 21.375, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.152, whereas it was significantly lower with a high level of difficulty [F(1, 119) = 4.669, p = 0.033, η2 = 0.038]. Furthermore, gaming well-being significantly changed with board game difficulty level, F(2, 119) = 17.294, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.225: gaming well-being reported by participants who played with high difficult games was significantly lower compared to the other two groups (plow level = 0.000; pmedium level = 0.000).
3.3 Satisfaction and board game type
ANOVA analyses showed that participants who played high-difficulty games reported the highest satisfaction with the experience [F(2, 86) = 3.178, p = 0.047]. Their satisfaction (M = 4.08; SD = 0.47) was higher than participants in medium (M = 3.84; SD = 0.38) and low (M = 3.78; SD = 0.43) game level conditions. In addition, post-hoc analyses showed no variance between medium and low levels of difficulty (p = 0.600) but significant differences between participants who played with the high levels of difficulty compared to the medium (p = 0.021) or low levels (p = 0.044).
4 Discussion
This study investigated the role of board games as a viable tool to promote the well-being of older people and, consequently, to promote positive aging. Confirming the hypotheses of this study, the results showed that well-being during a single game was higher than general well-being, especially when board games had a low or medium level of difficulty.
The literature on play activities has provided evidence of the impact of board games on psychological well-being. Indeed, several studies have investigated the role of gaming experiences on children’s emotional development (Zaharia et al., 2022; Dell’Angela et al., 2020), university students’ well-being (Guardabassi et al., 2024) or adults’ flow state (Khan and Pearce, 2015; Kloep et al., 2023). However, there is very little research on older people. Furthermore, the majority of studies on older people and play activities have mainly focused on cognitive performance (Ching-Teng, 2019; Estrada-Plana et al., 2021; Chen and Tsai, 2022), and the few investigations on the effects of board games on psychological health have shown contrasting results. For example, Estrada-Plana et al. (2021) found no significant differences in depressive symptoms and quality of life after weeks of board game sessions, whereas results from Chen and Tsai (2022), Bodner et al. (2024), or Lee et al. (2020) suggested that board games improved interpersonal communication, self-efficacy, and well-being and reduced depression symptoms in older people. This study integrates these contradictions by showing that the positive effects of board games depend on the level of complexity of the board game.
Moreover, in line with previous studies that emphasized the importance of game complexity level to motivate participants (Hattie et al., 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2020; Ryan et al., 2006), to have an optimal game experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), board games are only effective when the level of complexity is not high. Just as simple digital games are more effective in older participants (Gerling et al., 2012; Skjæret-Maroni et al., 2016), older people who played the low-difficulty board game showed a higher gaming well-being than general well-being. Indeed, people who played a board game for the first time could mostly benefit from an easy and comfortable game (Hodent, 2017). However, older people also enjoyed playing a board game with a medium level of difficulty. Similar to the digital puzzle in Chen and Janicki’s (2020) study, it probably represents a good mix of difficulty and the opportunity to gradually grasp the game’s goals. The most difficult board game, with complex problem-solving activities, was perceived to be beyond the participants’ possibility [i.e. beyond the zone of proximal development (Vygotskij, 1934)], and less enjoyable to play.
The results of this study have also enriched the literature on positive aging (e.g., Belachew et al., 2024), especially the area dealing with active sedentary activities (e.g., Hallgren et al., 2020; Kikuchi et al., 2014). In addition to physical or recreational activities (Dogra et al., 2022), board games with an appropriate level of difficulty can be included in positive aging programs for the well-being of older people. The results also suggest that participants were satisfied with their gaming experience, particularly older people who played the most difficult board game and reported lower levels of gaming well-being. This difference could be explained by cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962), but it should also be understood by considering gaming well-being and participant satisfaction as two different dimensions.
Although this study filled a gap in the literature and offered a new perspective on positive aging, its limitations should be considered. Firstly, no group tested a condition without any game-based activities or experienced the game activity in a different context. However, three different game conditions make it possible to understand the phenomenon and formulate considerations regarding board game types. Second, the mean age of participants in the game groups was different. Nevertheless, in the most challenging conditions, there were younger people who should feel less threatened by the level of difficulty, according to ageism stereotypes (Kang and Kim, 2022). Despite this, they were the most negatively affected. Thirdly, the final sample was less numerous due to missing data, and smaller groups reduced the test power. In addition, groups in the final sample did not have the same number of participants. Specifically, the high-difficulty condition has the largest number of missing responses, as 10 older people did not complete the final questionnaire correctly. However, despite the fewer participants in this condition, this behavior may represent another index of boredom or low motivation induced by high-difficulty games. Fourthly, the gaming well-being and satisfaction questionnaires were not standardized or measures used in previous studies. Nevertheless, the reliability of the gaming well-being scale is satisfactory, and the satisfaction questionnaire was used for descriptive purposes. Fifth, gaming well-being corresponds more to hedonic well-being, i.e., physical and emotional pleasure, than to eudemonic well-being, i.e., satisfaction and consistency with one’s values (Huta and Ryan, 2010). Although hedonic well-being is useful in reducing negative emotions such as depression or stress (Henderson et al., 2013), which is critical in older people (Hu et al., 2022), there is no evidence of its effects over the long term. Sixth, there was no manipulation check after the game experiences to verify the perception of the level of difficulty. However, the research team organized 14 telephonic interviews and two debriefing groups to better understand the study’s results. Participants considered the game with a high level of difficulty too complicated for older people; the game with a medium level was evaluated as difficult but interesting, whereas the easy game was considered a little childish.
Future studies can overcome these limitations and develop new research designs. For example, longitudinal studies can provide an opportunity to explore the long-term effects of game-based experiences on well-being and to extend the findings of Bodner et al. (2024) by investigating the role of different types of board games. Other unexplored dimensions such as social relationships, life satisfaction, or health-related quality of life may also be new unknown outcomes. Gaming activities are also related to psychological satisfaction, flow state, and cognitive stimulation (Errity et al., 2016). These outcomes should also be investigated in the older population. Otherwise, action research can be useful in developing board games in collaboration with older people: products should be able to respond to older people’s needs and be specific to their age. For example, Fernandes et al. (2023) created a board game called “The Ark of Rights” with older people, and the game successfully empowered older people regarding their rights. Similar research may be useful in identifying new strategies to promote the well-being of older people. The motivations and interests of older people should not be underestimated. Indeed, the game’s content and people’s interests may moderate the relationships between board games and older people’s well-being, and future studies should also focus on these variables.
The results are particularly important because board games can be a low-cost intervention to promote the well-being of older people. They can be easily adopted by social community centers, and playing board games can become a routine practice. Similarly, board games can also be used in family or other social contexts, as they provide a common platform for younger and older people, and intergenerational activities have a positive impact on the health of individuals (Cès et al., 2024; Canedo-Garcia et al., 2017) and on age-related attitudes (WHO, 2023). However, given the importance of choosing the right board game with an appropriate level of difficulty, play educators represent a very important professional figure: they can be beneficiaries of specific training programs and leaders of board game activities with older people as players.
In conclusion, board games can effectively promote positive aging, provided that an appropriate difficulty level is selected. Offering board games with varying and progressively challenging difficulty levels could enhance engagement, and involving experts in game selection and facilitation would further optimize these activities for older adults.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Macerata. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because, after reading the informed consent and data treatment form, people proceeded to fill out the questionnaire as a form of consent to participate.
Author contributions
VG: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EM: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft. MD: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft. EC: Investigation, Writing – original draft. AM: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft. PN: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The study is part of a larger research project funded by Clementoni S.p.A. Additionally, this work has been funded by the European Union-NextGenerationEU, under the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) National Innovation Ecosystem grant ECS00000041 - VITALITY – CUP D83C22000710005, which also supported the research activity of VG and PN as involved researchers. This funder authorized the submission of this publication and its costs.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declare that this study received funding from Clementoni S.p.A. Clementoni S.p.A provided board games, covered material and mobility costs, and collaborated in research dissemination activities, and public engagement. The funder was updated about the study progress, but was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abu Elheja, R., Palgi, Y., Feldman, R., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Keisari, S., and Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2021). The role of oxytocin in regulating loneliness in old age. Psychoneuroendocrinology 133:105413. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105413
Afridi, A., Rathore, F. A., and Nazir, S. N. B. (2021). Wii fit for balance training in elderly: a systematic review. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 31, 559–566. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2021.05.559
Aguirre-Cardona, L. A., and Mendoza-Espinel, L. E. (2022). Game, toy, and elderly. A necessary approach from a systematic review. San Javier Murcia: FEADEF.
Alhasan, H., Hood, V., and Mainwaring, F. (2017). The effect of visual biofeedback on balance in elderly population: a systematic review. Clin. Interv. Aging 12, 487–497. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S127023
Anguera, J. A., Schachtner, J. N., Simon, A. J., Volponi, J., Javed, S., Gallen, C. L., et al. (2021). Long-term maintenance of multitasking abilities following video game training in older adults. Neurobiol. Aging. 103, 22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.02.023
Antunes, T. P. C., Oliveira, A. S. B. D., Crocetta, T. B., Antão, J. Y. F. D. L., Barbosa, R. T. D. A., Guarnieri, R., et al. (2017). Computer classes and games in virtual reality environment to reduce loneliness among students of an elderly reference center: study protocol for a randomized cross-over design. Medicine 96:e5954. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005954
Ayed, I., Ghazel, A., Jaume-i-Capó, A., Moyà-Alcover, G., Varona, J., and Martínez-Bueso, P. (2019). Vision-based serious games and virtual reality systems for motor rehabilitation: a review geared toward a research methodology. Int. J. Med. Inform. 131:103909. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.06.016
Azman, N., Suzuki, K., Suzuki, T., Ono, Y., Edanaka, Y., Kunieda, F., et al. (2017). Effect of dance video game training on elderly cognitive function (proc). Jap. Soc. Med. Biol. Eng. 55, 526–529. doi: 10.11239/jsmbe.55Annual.526
Belachew, A., Cherbuin, N., Bagheri, N., and Burns, R. (2024). A systematic review and Meta-analysis of the socioeconomic, lifestyle, and environmental factors associated with healthy aging in low and lower-middle-income countries. J. Pop. Aging 17, 365–387. doi: 10.1007/s12062-024-09444-x
Bodner, E., Segev, A., Chernitsky, R., and Barak, Y. (2024). Playing Kioku reduces loneliness in older adults: a pilot study. Games Health J. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2023.0130
Bonnechère, B., Klass, M., Langley, C., and Sahakian, B. J. (2021). Brain training using cognitive apps can improve cognitive performance and processing speed in older adults. Sci. Rep. 11:12313. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91867-z
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., and Strough, J. (2020). Age differences in reported social networks and well-being. Psychol. Aging 35, 159–168. doi: 10.1037/pag0000415
Bruner, J. S., Jolly, A., and Sylva, K. (1976). Play, its role in development and evolution. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Buecker, S., Luhmann, M., Haehner, P., Bühler, J. L., Dapp, L. C., Luciano, E. C., et al. (2023). The development of subjective well-being across the life span: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 149, 418–446. doi: 10.1037/bul0000401
Campo-Prieto, P., Rodríguez-Fuentes, G., and Cancela-Carral, J. M. (2021). Immersive virtual reality exergame promotes the practice of physical activity in older people: an opportunity during COVID-19. Multimodal Technol. Int. 5:52. doi: 10.3390/mti5090052
Canedo-Garcia, A., Garcia-Sanchez, J. N., and Pacheco-Sanz, D. I. (2017). A systematic review of the effectiveness of intergenerational programs. Front. Psychol. 8:1882. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01882
Cès, P., Duflos, M., Tricard, E., Jhean-Larose, S., and Giraudeau, C. (2024). Playing board games to increase emotional competencies in school-age children and older people: a systematic review. Leis. Sci. 24, 1–24. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2024.2373415
Chen, Y. F., and Janicki, S. (2020). A cognitive-based board game with augmented reality for older adults: development and usability study. JMIR Serious Games 8:e22007. doi: 10.2196/22007
Chen, M.-F., and Tsai, C.-C. (2022). The effectiveness of a thanks, sorry, love, and farewell board game in older people in Taiwan: a quasi-experimental study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19:3146. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19053146
Chiang, L., Cheong, D., Cordato, N. J., and Smerdely, P. (2024). Visual art therapy and its effects in older people with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 39:e6053. doi: 10.1002/gps.6053
Ching-Teng, Y. (2019). Effect of board game activities on cognitive function improvement among older adults in adult day care centers. Soc. Work Health Care 58, 825–838. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2019.1656143
Cicek, A., Ozdincler, A. R., and Tarakci, E. (2020). Interactive video game-based approaches improve mobility and mood in older adults: a nonrandomized, controlled tri̇al. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 24, 252–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.01.005
Cousins, S. O. B., and Witcher, C. S. (2007). Who plays bingo in later life? The sedentary lifestyles of ‘little old ladies’. J. Gambl. Stud. 23, 95–112. doi: 10.1007/s10899-006-9030-8
Crealey, G., McQuade, L., O’Sullivan, R., and O’Neill, C. (2023). Arts and creativity interventions for improving health and wellbeing in older adults: a systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies. BMC Public Health 23:2496. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17369-x
Cresswell-Smith, J., Amaddeo, F., Donisi, V., Forsman, A. K., Kalseth, J., Martin-Maria, N., et al. (2019). Determinants of multidimensional mental wellbeing in the oldest old: a rapid review. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 54, 135–144. doi: 10.1007/s00127-018-1633-8
Cunningham, C., O’Sullivan, R., Caserotti, P., and Tully, M. A. (2020). Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: a systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 30, 816–827. doi: 10.1111/sms.13616
Czaja, S. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Rogers, W. A., and Sharit, J. (2018). Improving social support for older adults through technology: findings from the PRISM randomized controlled trial. The Gerontologist 58, 467–477. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnw249
De Morais, M. A., De Lima, B. E., and Bandeira Santos, L. C. (2020). Acute effect of Xbox exercise on mood states in older adults. Act. Adapt. Aging 44, 146–156. doi: 10.1080/01924788.2019.1618689
Dell’Angela, L., Zaharia, A., Lobel, A., Vico Begara, O., Sander, D., and Samson, A. C. (2020). Board games on emotional competences for school-age children. Games Health J. 9, 187–196. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2019.0050
Diniz, J. L., Coutinho, J. F. V., Marques, M. B., Santos, I. D. S., Barbosa, R. G. B., Silva, R. D. R. L., et al. (2022). Development and testing of the Prev’Quedas game for older adults in the community: a descriptive study. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 75:e20220098. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2022-0098
Dogra, S., Dunstan, D. W., Sugiyama, T., Stathi, A., Gardiner, P. A., and Owen, N. (2022). Active aging and public health: evidence, implications, and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 43, 439–459. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052620-091107
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 196, 129–136. doi: 10.1126/science.847460
Errity, A., Rooney, B., and Tunney, C. (2016). “Gaming” in An introduction to cyberpsychology. eds. I. Connolly, M. Palmer, H. Barton, and G. Kirwan (London: Routledge), 257–270.
Estrada-Plana, V., Montanera, R., Ibarz-Estruga, A., March-Llanes, J., Vita-Barrull, N., Guzmán, N., et al. (2021). Cognitive training with modern board and card games in healthy older adults: two randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 36, 839–850. doi: 10.1002/gps.5484
Fernandes, C. S., Neto, C., Silva, C., Dionísio, S., Oliveira, S., Amorim, I., et al. (2023). “The ark of rights”: development of a board game to empower older adults regarding their rights. J. Aging Longevity 3, 107–115. doi: 10.3390/jal3010009
Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Sci. Am. 207, 93–106. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93
Fowler Davis, S., Benkowitz, C., Nield, L., and Dayson, C. (2024). Green spaces and the impact on cognitive frailty: a scoping review. Front. Public Health 11:1278542. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1278542
Gashaj, V., Dapp, L. C., Trninic, D., and Roebers, C. M. (2021). The effect of video games, exergames and board games on executive functions in kindergarten and 2nd grade: an explorative longitudinal study. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 25:100162. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2021.100162
Gates, N. J., Rutjes, A. W., Di Nisio, M., Karim, S., Chong, L.-Y., March, E., et al. (2020). Computerised cognitive training for 12 or more weeks for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020:CD012277. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012277.pub3
Gauthier, A., Kato, P. M., Bul, K. C., Dunwell, I., Walker-Clarke, A., and Lameras, P. (2019). Board games for health: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Games Health J. 8, 85–100. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2018.0017
Gerling, K. M., Schulte, F. P., Smeddinck, J., and Masuch, M. (2012). “Game design for older adults: effects of age-related changes on structural elements of digital games,” in Entertainment computing-ICEC 2012: 11th International Conference, ICEC 2012, Bremen, Germany, September 26–29, 2012. Proceedings 11. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 235–242.
Gonzalo-Iglesia, J. L., Lozano-Monterrubio, N., and Prades-Tena, J. (2018). The usage of game-based learning in university education. How to motivate and foster creativity among adult students through board games. Proc. Play2Learn 4, 67–84.
Goodwin, V. A., Hall, A. J., Bethel, A., Taylor, E., Tatnell, L., Turner, M., et al. (2023). Understanding joy amongst older people: a scoping review. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 115:105118. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2023.105118
Guardabassi, V., Cirilli, E., and Nicolini, P. (2024). “From face-to-face to screen-to-screen. Online interactive 43 game-activities to promote student well-being,” in EDULEARN24 Proceedings, 44 IATED, 9694–9699.
Hallgren, M., Dunstan, D. W., and Owen, N. (2020). Passive versus mentally active sedentary behaviors and depression. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 48, 20–27. doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000211
Hattie, J., Hodis, F. A., and Kang, S. H. (2020). Theories of motivation: integration and ways forward. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61:101865. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101865
Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., and Richardson, B. (2013). An exploration of the well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic behaviour. J. Posit. Psychol. 8, 322–336. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2013.803596
Hodent, C. (2017). The Gamer’s brain: How neuroscience and UX can impact video game design. London: CRC Press.
Hodgson, J. R., Benkowitz, C., Castellani, B. C., Ellison, A., Yassaie, R., Twohig, H., et al. (2023). A scoping review of the effects of ambient air quality on cognitive frailty. Environments 11:4. doi: 10.3390/environments11010004
Hou, H. Y., and Li, H. J. (2022). Effects of exergame and video game training on cognitive and physical function in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Appl. Ergon. 101, 103690. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103690
Hu, T., Zhao, X., Wu, M., Li, Z., Luo, L., Yang, C., et al. (2022). Prevalence of depression in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 311:114511. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114511
Huta, V., and Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J. Happiness Stud. 11, 735–762. doi: 10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4
ISS (2014). La Sorveglianza passi d’argento. Available at: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/passi-argento/info/info (Accessed October 18, 2024).
Kang, H., and Kim, H. (2022). Ageism and psychological well-being among older adults: a systematic review. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 8:23337214221087023. doi: 10.1177/23337214221087023
Kaufman, D., Gayowsky, T., Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., and Duplàa, E. (2018). Older adults’ perceived benefits of digital gameplay: associations with demographics and game use patterns. Geron 17, 56–67. doi: 10.4017/gt.2018.17.1.006.00
Khan, A., and Pearce, G. (2015). A study into the effects of a board game on flow in undergraduate business students. Int. J. Manage. Educ. 13, 193–201. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.002
Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., and Wiewiora, A. (2016). The impact of technology on older adults’ social isolation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 594–603. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.092
Kikuchi, H., Inoue, S., Sugiyama, T., Owen, N., Oka, K., Nakaya, T., et al. (2014). Distinct associations of different sedentary behaviors with health-related attributes among older adults. Prev. Med. 67, 335–339. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.08.011
Kloep, L., Helten, A.-L., and Peifer, C. (2023). A playful way to promote team flow: evaluation of a positive psychological board game for team building. Int. J. Appl. Posit. Psychol. 8, 405–427. doi: 10.1007/s41042-023-00096-4
Lee, S., Oh, H., Shi, C. K., and Doh, Y. Y. (2021). Mobile game design guide to improve gaming experience for the middle-aged and older adult population: user-centered design approach. JMIR Serious Games 9:e24449. doi: 10.2196/24449
Lee, B.-O., Yao, C.-T., and Pan, C.-F. (2020). Effectiveness of board game activities for reducing depression among older adults in adult day care centers of Taiwan: a quasi-experimental study. Soc. Work Health Care 59, 725–737. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2020.1842576
Luke, J., Bartlett, C., March, S., and McIlveen, P. (2024). A systematic review of effective local, community or peer-delivered interventions to improve well-being and employment in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia. Aust. J. Rural Health 32, 433–454. doi: 10.1111/ajr.13113
Marquez, D. X., Aguiñaga, S., Vásquez, P. M., Conroy, D. E., Erickson, K. I., Hillman, C., et al. (2020). A systematic review of physical activity and quality of life and well-being. Transl. Behav. Med. 10, 1098–1109. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz198
Marsillas, S., De Donder, L., Kardol, T., Van Regenmortel, S., Dury, S., Brosens, D., et al. (2017). Does active aging contribute to life satisfaction for older people? Testing a new model of active aging. Eur. J. Aging 14, 295–310. doi: 10.1007/s10433-017-0413-8
McLaughlin, P. M., Curtis, A. F., Branscombe-Caird, L. M., Comrie, J. K., and Murtha, S. J. E. (2018). The feasibility and potential impact of brain training games on cognitive and emotional functioning in middle-aged adults. Games Health J. 7, 67–74. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2017.0032
McQuade, L., and O’Sullivan, R. (2023). Examining arts and creativity in later life and its impact on older people’s health and wellbeing: a systematic review of the evidence. Perspect. Public Health 11:175791392311575. doi: 10.1177/17579139231157533
Mortenson, W. B., Sixsmith, A., and Kaufman, D. (2017). Non-digital game playing by older adults. Can. J. Aging 36, 342–350. doi: 10.1017/S0714980817000162
Nakao, M. (2019). Special series on “effects of board games on health education and promotion” board games as a promising tool for health promotion: a review of recent literature. BioPsycho Soc. Med. 13:5. doi: 10.1186/s13030-019-0146-3
Nyende, A., Ellis-Hill, C., and Mantzoukas, S. (2023). A sense of control and wellbeing in older people living with frailty: a scoping review. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work. 66, 1043–1072. doi: 10.1080/01634372.2023.2206438
Outley, C. W., and McKenzie, S. (2007). Older African American women: an examination of the intersections of an adult play group and life satisfaction. Act. Adapt. Aging 31, 19–36. doi: 10.1300/J016v31n02_02
Piaget, J. (1945). La formation du symbole chez l’enfant. Tr. It. La formazione del simbolo nel bambino. La Nuova Italia, Firenze, 1972.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61:101860. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., and Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motiv. Emot. 30, 344–360. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
Seah, E. T. W., Kaufman, D., Sauvé, L., and Zhang, F. (2018). Play, learn, connect: older adults’ experience with a multiplayer, educational, digital bingo game. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 56, 675–700. doi: 10.1177/0735633117722329
Sixsmith, J., Makita, M., Menezes, D., Cranwell, M., Chau, I., Smith, M., et al. (2023). Enhancing community participation through age-friendly ecosystems: a rapid realist review. Geriatrics 8:52. doi: 10.3390/geriatrics8030052
Skjæret-Maroni, N., Vonstad, E. K., Ihlen, E. A., Tan, X. C., Helbostad, J. L., and Vereijken, B. (2016). Exergaming in older adults: movement characteristics while playing stepping games. Front. Psychol. 7:964. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00964
Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., and Smilek, D. (2015). A resource-control account of sustained attention: evidence from mind-wandering and vigilance paradigms. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 82–96. doi: 10.1177/1745691614556681
Torres, A. C. S. (2011). Cognitive effects of video games on old people. Int. J. Disability Hum. Dev. 10:3. doi: 10.1515/ijdhd.2011.003
Tsai, C. C., Chen, P. Y., Tsai, M. Y., Wu, C. S., and Chen, M. F. (2024). The effect of a bone-preserving board game program on the knowledge, attitudes and preventive behaviors of osteoporosis in older adults. Geriatr. Nurs. 56, 212–217. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2024.02.007
Vygotskij, L. S. (1934). Myslenie i rec Psichologiceskie issledovanija. Movska-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Socialno-Ekonomiceskoe Izdatelstvo.
Wang, C., Li, L., and Wang, A. (2021). Research on the influence of sport dance on physical health in national fitness exercise. Rev. Bras. Med. Esporte 27, 481–484. doi: 10.1590/1517-8692202127042021_0077
WHO (1948). Constitution of the world health organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution (Accessed September 23, 2024).
WHO (2020). Healthy aging and functional ability. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/healthy-aging-and-functional-ability (Accessed September 23, 2024).
WHO (2022). Aging and health. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/aging-and-health (Accessed September 23, 2024).
WHO (2023). Connecting generations: planning and implementing interventions for intergenerational contact. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240070264 (Accessed September 23, 2024).
WHO. (1998). Wellbeing measures in primary health care/the DepCare Project: report on a WHO meeting: Stockholm, Sweden, 12–13 February 1998 (No. WHO/EURO: 1998-4234-43993-62027). World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe.
Yang, Y., Van Schooten, K. S., McKay, H. A., Sims-Gould, J., Hoang, R. A., and Robinovitch, S. N. (2021). Recreational therapy to promote mobility in long-term care: a scoping review. J. Aging Phys. Act. 29, 142–161. doi: 10.1123/japa.2019-0345
Ylönen, M., Stolt, M., Kohanová, D., and Suhonen, R. (2024). Older individuals’ perspectives on the prerequisites for living at home: a mixed-methods systematic review. Int. J. Older People Nursing 19:e12603. doi: 10.1111/opn.12603
Yu, D. S. F., Li, P. W. C., Lin, R. S. Y., Kee, F., Chiu, A., and Wu, W. (2023). Effects of non-pharmacological interventions on loneliness among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 144:104524. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104524
Keywords: older people, active aging, positive aging, board games, well-being
Citation: Guardabassi V, Manoni E, Di Massimo M, Cirilli E, Maranesi A and Nicolini P (2024) Aging with board games: fostering well-being in the older population. Front. Psychol. 15:1501111. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1501111
Edited by:
Anna Maria Berardi, Université de Lorraine, FranceReviewed by:
Rylee Dionigi, Charles Sturt University, AustraliaDavid Alarcón, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Spain
Copyright © 2024 Guardabassi, Manoni, Di Massimo, Cirilli, Maranesi and Nicolini. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Veronica Guardabassi, dmVyb25pY2EuZ3VhcmRhYmFzc2lAdW5pbWMuaXQ=
†ORCID: Veronica Guardabassi, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8400-8223
Evelyn Manoni, https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8076-5881
Marta Di Massimo, https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5425-7264
Elisa Cirilli, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0469-7920
Alessandro Maranesi, https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6370-1250
Paola Nicolini, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6136-6792