Background: Military trauma teams are commonly operating in civilian hospitals during peacetime; in a war situation they must adjust their practices to the austere conditions. Simulations can replicate austere conditions to allow training in a safe environment that tolerates errors. Gamification, understood as the use of game elements to motivate and engage learners in nongame contexts, is gaining interest in medical education and military training. Applying game elements in the design of military trauma management simulations has the potential to provide learners with active learning opportunities and prepare them for providing medical services under austere conditions. Although gamification is known for its engaging and motivational benefits, there are controversies about its pedagogical value. The controversies can be attributed to the fact that various gamification strategies may consist of a different combination of game elements, leading to different outcomes. Objective: This systematic review aims to understand how game elements are used in the design of simulations in military trauma management training and their reported outcomes. Methods: We have designed a search strategy for the purpose of the review. Two researchers will independently assess the identified studies based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selection process will be represented using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. The search will be repeated and updated as necessary prior to publication of the review. Two reviewers will independently extract and manage the data for each of the articles using a structured data extraction form. Any disagreement that arises between reviewers will be resolved through discussion, and a third review author will be consulted when needed. We are going to conduct a thematic synthesis of the extracted game element descriptions. The results are going to be presented in a diagrammatic or tabular form, alongside a narrative summary. The quality of the studies will be assessed. Results: We implemented and tested the developed search strategy in May 2023. We retrieved 1168 study abstracts, which were reduced to 630 abstracts after deduplication. We have piloted the screening on 20% (126/630) of the identified abstracts in groups of 2 reviewers. Conclusions: Although gamification has the potential to motivate learners in various ways, there is a lack of understanding about specific game elements and how they can inform instructional design in different contexts. Our findings will increase the understanding of how game elements are used in the design of simulations in military trauma management training and, thus, contribute to more effective development of future simulations.
Background: Game elements may inform the design of both simulations and games. However, evidence on how individual game elements inform the design of military trauma training simulations and their educational purpose remains limited. Objective: This systematic review aimed to examine which game elements are used in the design of educational simulations for military trauma management, how they are implemented, for what purpose, and what outcomes are reported related to the game elements. Methods: This is a systematic review conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and design studies describing simulation-based training for military trauma management that incorporated game elements. Studies focusing solely on assessment, noninteractive interventions, or psychological trauma were excluded. Searches were conducted in Medline (Ovid), PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ERIC, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and CINAHL from inception to October 14, 2025, identifying 2487 records. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Côté and Turgeon grid. Results were synthesized using qualitative thematic synthesis. Results: Forty-two studies published between 1986 and 2025 were included. Most studies were conducted in the United States and included a wide range of simulation modalities and learner populations. Sixteen game elements were identified, with narrative, sensation, imposed choice, time pressure, and scoring being most prevalent. The thematic synthesis identified multiple categories describing how these game elements were implemented. Justifications for the use of game elements were rarely provided; when present, they were primarily linked to realism, emotional engagement, adaptive learning, and feedback. Elements such as badges and competition were seldom used. No study explicitly linked individual game elements to specific educational outcomes. This review is constrained by heterogeneity across studies, an imperfect fit of quality appraisal tools for some study types, and the possibility of missed studies due to search vocabulary limitations. Conclusions: This systematic review is innovative in providing the first comprehensive synthesis of how game elements are used in military trauma simulations. Unlike previous reviews, it explicitly focuses on the pedagogical purposes of these elements. It offers an overview of the prevalence of game elements in military trauma care education and synthesizes the pedagogical rationales for their use. The lack of studies explicitly linking individual game elements to learning outcomes highlights the need for more intentional research and transparent reporting. Future studies should treat gamification as a set of targeted design choices rather than as a single overarching strategy, and explore how its motivational dimensions can be effectively leveraged in military trauma training.