Number of Citations: 0

Submitted: 9 October 2024
Accepted: 25 July 2025
Published online: 7 October, TAPS 2025, 10(4), 90-93
https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2025-10-4/II3539

Shigeki Matsubara

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jichi Medical University, Japan; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Koga Red Cross Hospital, Japan; Medical Examination Centre, Ibaraki Western Medical Centre, Japan

I. INTRODUCTION

The concept of “gamification” has been introduced to medical education: game elements employed for education enhance learning outcomes by making the educational process more interactive and engaging (Lee et al., 2025). Various games have been introduced—serious games, escape rooms, simulation games, and others. Although the theoretical underpinnings of why “gamification” improves educational outcomes are not yet fully clarified, incorporating game mechanics into medical education appears to enhance learner motivation, engagement, and performance, particularly in teaching clinical reasoning and collaborative decision-making (Lee et al., 2025).

In this manuscript, I wish to introduce the application of “gamification” to medical meetings, especially from the viewpoint of the audience. More accurately, I have been practicing it for 30 years—long before the term “gamification” became widely recognised. Here, “gamification” does not refer to a systematic process involving meeting stakeholders, but rather to the individual audience member’s attitude toward how to attend. I believe that “gamification” activates attendees and benefits them: it helps them remain well informed in the face of ever-expanding knowledge.

Medical meetings consist of the audience, presenter, chairperson, and organizers. While some publications focus on how to deliver an effective presentation (Nundy et al., 2022), it is crucial to recognize that the top priority should be the audience (Matsubara & Matsubara, 2024a). A previous report suggested that presenters and chairpersons could activate audience-friendly meetings (Matsubara & Matsubara, 2024a). However, practical suggestions for the audience remain relatively scarce. Some literature merely advises: “Be an active learner; ask questions” (Fisher & Trautner, 2022). To my knowledge, there is limited evidence on whether “active learning and active asking” are truly lacking in real-world settings, and if so, what barriers may underlie this. If the absence of “gamification” factors partly contributes to these barriers, then the present proposal may become more reasonable and persuasive. That said, this proposal is not primarily based on such reasoning. But indeed, publications on active learning and active asking from the viewpoint of “gamification” are lacking, and senior staff are less likely to provide practical advice. Thus, audience members, especially younger generations, may receive little guidance on how to participate effectively in scientific meetings.

I propose a new way of how audiences actively participate in medical meetings. Based on my decade-long experience, I focus on two elements: “listening” and “asking”. These two actions are, I believe, the essence of audience participation. My proposal is to incorporate the concept of “gamification” into personal “listening and asking” activity.

II. “LISTENING”: EFFECTIVE KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION AT MEDICAL MEETINGS

When I was younger, I took notes on everything and tried to memorise the data presented. For example, I wrote down, “Methotrexate 50 mg cured ectopic pregnancy”. While this approach might work for some, I found that for me, this classroom-like method was neither effective nor reliable. It exhausted my physical and mental energy, sometimes leading to the retention of inaccurate information.

Around 30 years ago, I changed my style. I began to approach meetings as if they were a “game”, the concept now acknowledged as “gamification”. The night before the scientific or medical meetings, I quickly glanced through the program listing titles of the presentations (and abstracts, if available) to form a rough idea of the topics, ignoring details. Before the session starts, I read the presentation titles, for example, “Methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy,” and came up with some likely scenarios (A, B, or C) that the presenter might discuss, akin to forming a hypothesis. If the presenter confirmed scenario A, I thought, “Got it!”. After the presentation, I created a one-line conclusion based on my interpretation, which might align with or differ from the presenter’s. Importantly, this conclusion should always be in my own words (Tip 1 and Additional Notes in the Appendix).

I always did this and made it a routine for medical or scientific meetings. It was useful to skim the titles or abstracts beforehand to become familiar with the field. This enabled me to predict what the presenter might say. Afterwards, I summarised the presentation in my own words. This process mirrors manuscript writing, where I gather general knowledge, form a hypothesis, and craft a key message—essential steps for completing a successful paper (Matsubara & Matsubara, 2024b). Thus, listening to presentations served as practice for writing manuscripts. This procedure changed my attitude toward scientific meetings, and even improved my paper productivity. I began to look forward to the next meeting, anticipating the new ideas I might encounter. I became an active audience member. The one-line conclusion made me continue contemplating whether my interpretation was correct. Even after the meetings, I repeatedly glanced at it, and sometimes a new idea or concept emerged from that single line, which triggered me to write some papers. Thus, this “gamification” concept in listening was effective not only during the scientific meeting but also afterwards. As described, “gamification” has now been widely discussed as an effective measure in medical education (Lee et al., 2025). Here, I propose that involving the concept of “gamification” at a personal level may enhance active participation in scientific meetings, and thereby support life-long learning.

Why not view medical meetings as a “game” rather than a mere duty? This perspective helped me stay relaxed and engaged throughout the session. It renewed my knowledge base and offered a chance for manuscript-writing practice.

III. VALUABLE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO ACTIVATE MEETINGS

Asking questions not only deepens one’s understanding, but also helps activate the meeting itself. The following suggestions may be particularly useful for senior attendants, including meeting leaders, but they are equally relevant to the general audience, including the younger generation.

Valuable questions can:

1. help clarify knowledge for the audience and enhance their understanding,
2. increase the significance of the study being discussed. Here, “questions” can also refer to general remarks about the presentation.
   
   

Some studies present an incorrect message regarding treatment recommendations, which less-experienced doctors may apply without question. Ask questions to clarify. Some presenters may refrain from stating a clear conclusion. Ask for a tentative conclusion. These kinds of questions may also be considered, in a broader sense, a form of “gamification”: such questions can open further discussion and, in that sense, the questioner could act as a “game changer”.

Questions often increase the significance of a study. For example, ask if there’s another relevant interpretation of the data, if similar studies exist that the presenter might not be aware of, or if there are historical perspectives on the issue. Cross-disciplinary perspectives are often useful. For example, perspectives from fields like neurosurgery, gastroenterology, or urology can activate discussions in psychiatry, endoscopy, or nephrology meetings, respectively. Please focus on asking questions that relate to the study’s significance, rather than those solely of personal interest. This approach is akin to how a chairperson should handle the question-answer sessions (Matsubara & Matsubara, 2024a) (Tip 2 and Additional Notes in the Appendix).

Questions can complement presentations much like correspondences enrich published articles by offering additional perspectives. Good questions prompt the presenter and audience to recognise further significance in the presentation. This benefits everyone—the questioner, the presenter, and the general audience. This situation mirrors how good correspondence enriches all parties involved in the academic discussion.

IV. CONCLUSION: PASSING ON THE EXPERIENCE TO THE NEXT GENERATION

I propose a change in perspective: learning at scientific meetings should be viewed as a game.  “Listening” and “asking” share similarities with writing a paper. Having a bird’s-eye view, crafting a hypothesis, and forming a key message are essential for both “effective attendance to meetings” and paper writing (Matsubara & Matsubara, 2024b). A good question is like a brief, insightful correspondence. Thus, making an effort to be a good audience also nurtures good researchers and writers.

Finally, I would like to add that, medical meetings provide opportunities not only to gain knowledge, but also to engage in face-to-face communication. Making acquaintances there may broaden future research opportunities, which is especially important for younger physicians. A positive meeting atmosphere encourages such communication. I believe that good “listening” and thoughtful “asking” contribute to this. Active listening and well-considered questions benefit all participants in three ways: deepening understanding for those who ask, helping everyone grasp the presentation’s significance, and fostering a welcoming atmosphere.

Having participated in numerous meetings, I’ve developed this perspective. It’s unclear whether some hierarchical or systemic influences hinder “natural” listening and asking, especially among younger generations. If so, how best to address them should be studied. Regardless, we, as meeting participants, should cultivate the sensitivity to recognise a question that sparks a game-changing moment. I believe the present description offers a way to fully engage in medical and scientific meetings by viewing them as a “game”. This approach has helped me grow as a researcher-physician, contributing to the publication of over 600 PubMed-indexed papers. Thus, for me, this method is time-tested. I believe seasoned doctors like myself have a responsibility to pass on their experiences to the next generation. I invite you to try my perspective, and hope that it serves as a platform for further discussion.

Notes on Contributors

Shigeki Matsubara reviewed the literature, made the concept, wrote and edited the manuscript.

Acknowledgement

I thank Professor Shinya Ito (University of Toronto, Canada), Professor Yasushi Matsuyama (Jichi Medical Univeristy, Japan), and Teppei Matsubara (Harvard Medical School, USA), for their critical reading of this manuscript.

Funding

There are no funding sources for this paper.

Declaration of Interest

Shigeki Matsubara has no conflict of interest to declare.

References

Fisher, J.W. & Trautner, B.W. (2022). Maximizing the academic conference experience: Tips for your career toolkit. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(2), 144-148. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-21-00943.1

Lee, C.Y., Lee, C.H., Lai, H.Y., Chen, P.J., Chen, M.M., & Yau, S.Y. (2025). Emerging trends in gamification for clinical reasoning education: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 435. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07044-7

Matsubara, S., & Matsubara, D. (2024a). An audience-friendly medical meeting: A good presentation and chairpersonship. JMA journal, 7(3), 406-409. https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2023-0219  

Matsubara, S., & Matsubara, D. (2024b). A checklist confirming whether a manuscript for submission adheres to the fundamentals of academic writing: A proposal. JMA journal, 7(2), 276-278. https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2023-0201

Nundy, S., Kakar, A., & Bhutta, Z.A. (2022). How to give an oral presentation? In Nundy S., Kakar A., & Bhutta Z.A. (Eds.), How to practice academic medicine and publish from developing countries?: A practical guide (pp. 357-366). Springer Nature.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5248-6

*Shigeki Matsubara
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,
Jichi Medical University
3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi 329-0498, Japan
Email: matsushi@jichi.ac.jp