Learning Outcome After Different Combinations of Seven Learning Activities in Basic Life Support on Laypersons in Workplaces: a Cluster Randomised, Controlled Trial.

Automated external defibrillation Basic life support Cardiopulmonary resuscitation Learning activities Learning outcome Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Journal

Medical science educator
ISSN: 2156-8650
Titre abrégé: Med Sci Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101625548

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Historique:
accepted: 06 11 2020
entrez: 30 8 2021
pubmed: 31 8 2021
medline: 31 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The goal for laypersons after training in basic life support (BLS) is to act effectively in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest situation. However, it is still unclear whether BLS training targeting laypersons at workplaces is optimal or whether other effective learning activities are possible. The primary aim was to evaluate whether there were other modes of BLS training that improved learning outcome as compared with a control group, i.e. standard BLS training, six months after training, and secondarily directly after training. In this multi-arm trial, lay participants ( Four different training modes showed a significantly higher total score compared with standard (mean difference 2.3-2.9). The highest score was for the BLS intervention including a preparatory web-based education, instructor-led training, film-based instructions, reflective questions and a chest compression feedback device (95% CI for difference 0.9-5.0), 6 months after training. BLS training adding several different combinations of a preparatory web-based education, reflective questions and chest compression feedback to instructor-led training and film-based instructions obtained higher modified Cardiff Test total scores 6 months after training compared with standard BLS training alone. The differences were small in magnitude and the clinical relevance of our findings needs to be further explored. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03618888. Registered August 07, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03618888. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01160-3.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The goal for laypersons after training in basic life support (BLS) is to act effectively in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest situation. However, it is still unclear whether BLS training targeting laypersons at workplaces is optimal or whether other effective learning activities are possible.
AIM OBJECTIVE
The primary aim was to evaluate whether there were other modes of BLS training that improved learning outcome as compared with a control group, i.e. standard BLS training, six months after training, and secondarily directly after training.
METHODS METHODS
In this multi-arm trial, lay participants (
RESULTS RESULTS
Four different training modes showed a significantly higher total score compared with standard (mean difference 2.3-2.9). The highest score was for the BLS intervention including a preparatory web-based education, instructor-led training, film-based instructions, reflective questions and a chest compression feedback device (95% CI for difference 0.9-5.0), 6 months after training.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
BLS training adding several different combinations of a preparatory web-based education, reflective questions and chest compression feedback to instructor-led training and film-based instructions obtained higher modified Cardiff Test total scores 6 months after training compared with standard BLS training alone. The differences were small in magnitude and the clinical relevance of our findings needs to be further explored.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03618888. Registered August 07, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03618888.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BACKGROUND
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01160-3.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34457876
doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01160-3
pii: 1160
pmc: PMC8368380
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03618888']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

161-173

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing InterestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Références

Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:288-301
pubmed: 26477418
Eur J Emerg Med. 2012 Aug;19(4):214-9
pubmed: 21897264
AAOHN J. 2009 Apr;57(4):159-67; quiz 168-9
pubmed: 19438082
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 13;14(2):e0211792
pubmed: 30759140
Resuscitation. 2010 Jul;81(7):877-81
pubmed: 20409627
Resuscitation. 2019 Jun;139:122-132
pubmed: 30926451
Neth Heart J. 2016 Jul;24(7-8):456-61
pubmed: 27194119
Blood Press. 1992 Aug;1(2):113-9
pubmed: 1366259
Resuscitation. 2007 Sep;74(3):476-86
pubmed: 17442479
Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):e56-e528
pubmed: 30700139
Emerg Med J. 2012 Jul;29(7):587-91
pubmed: 21856706
Med Educ. 2009 Jan;43(1):21-7
pubmed: 19140995
Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132(18 Suppl 2):S561-73
pubmed: 26473002
Circulation. 2016 Aug 23;134(8):e87-e108
pubmed: 27334603
Acad Med. 2015 Nov;90(11):1438-41
pubmed: 26375269
Circulation. 2018 May 29;137(22):e802-e819
pubmed: 29700123
Resuscitation. 2010 Oct;81(10):1277-92
pubmed: 20956051
Resuscitation. 2019 Aug;141:73-80
pubmed: 31212041
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010 Aug;15(3):395-401
pubmed: 19838814
Resuscitation. 2010 Oct;81(10):1434-44
pubmed: 20956044
Resuscitation. 2015 May;90:56-60
pubmed: 25724354
Circulation. 2018 Aug 7;138(6):e82-e122
pubmed: 29930020
Resuscitation. 2018 May;126:147-153
pubmed: 29522830
Resuscitation. 2006 Dec;71(3):283-92
pubmed: 17070980
Hong Kong Med J. 2010 Jun;16(3):165-70
pubmed: 20519751
Resuscitation. 2009 Jul;80(7):743-51
pubmed: 19477574
Resuscitation. 2017 May;114:83-91
pubmed: 28242211
CJEM. 2016 Jul;18(4):276-82
pubmed: 26775890
Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:81-99
pubmed: 26477420
Circ J. 2019 Jan 25;83(2):418-423
pubmed: 30606940
Resuscitation. 2009 Jan;80(1):79-82
pubmed: 18952361
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Mar;31(3):364-9
pubmed: 9506495
Data Brief. 2019 May 26;25:104064
pubmed: 31304210
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 11;14(7):e0219341
pubmed: 31295275
Resuscitation. 2015 May;90:79-84
pubmed: 25766092
Circulation. 2020 Oct 20;142(16_suppl_1):S2-S27
pubmed: 33084397
JAMA. 2019 Apr 23;321(16):1610-1620
pubmed: 31012939

Auteurs

Helene Bylow (H)

Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Thomas Karlsson (T)

Health Metrics Unit, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Margret Lepp (M)

Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Østfold University College, Halden, Norway.
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

Andreas Claesson (A)

Department of Medicine, Centre for Resuscitation Science, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Jonny Lindqvist (J)

Centre of Registers Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Leif Svensson (L)

Department of Medicine, Centre for Resuscitation Science, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Johan Herlitz (J)

Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Centre of Registers Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Prehospen-Centre of Prehospital Research, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden.

Classifications MeSH