We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Teaching basic life support: a prospective randomized study on low-cost training strategies in secondary schools.
European Journal of Emergency Medicine : Official Journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine 2014 August
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training at school is recommended. Limited school resources prevent implementation. The learning efficacy of low-cost training strategies is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of different CPR learning strategies using low-cost didactic tools.
METHODS: Children (n=593, 15-16 years) were randomized to four training conditions: (1) manikin+teacher instruction (control group), (2) manikin+video instruction, (3) foam dice+plastic bag+peer training+teacher instruction, and (4) foam dice+plastic bag+peer training+video instruction. After a 50 min training, a 3 min CPR test on a manikin was performed using SkillReporting Software (Laerdal, Norway), and repeated after 6 months. The data of children without previous CPR training were analysed. Analysis of variance and the χ-test assessed differences between groups.
RESULTS: Complete data sets were available for 165 pupils. Initially, group 3 scored lower on the mean ventilation volume (P<0.05). The control group scored better than the alternative groups (P<0.05) on the mean compression rate. After 6 months, the differences disappeared. All groups scored equally on ventilation volume (P=0.12), compression depth (P=0.11), compression rate (P=0.10), correct hand position (P=0.46) and number of correct compressions (P=0.76). Ventilation volume was sufficient in 32% of the pupils, 18% had a correct compression depth and 59% had a correct compression rate.
CONCLUSION: Training efficacy with low-cost equipment was not different from training with a manikin. The outcome for all training strategies was suboptimal. The basics of CPR can be taught with alternative equipment if manikins are not available.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of different CPR learning strategies using low-cost didactic tools.
METHODS: Children (n=593, 15-16 years) were randomized to four training conditions: (1) manikin+teacher instruction (control group), (2) manikin+video instruction, (3) foam dice+plastic bag+peer training+teacher instruction, and (4) foam dice+plastic bag+peer training+video instruction. After a 50 min training, a 3 min CPR test on a manikin was performed using SkillReporting Software (Laerdal, Norway), and repeated after 6 months. The data of children without previous CPR training were analysed. Analysis of variance and the χ-test assessed differences between groups.
RESULTS: Complete data sets were available for 165 pupils. Initially, group 3 scored lower on the mean ventilation volume (P<0.05). The control group scored better than the alternative groups (P<0.05) on the mean compression rate. After 6 months, the differences disappeared. All groups scored equally on ventilation volume (P=0.12), compression depth (P=0.11), compression rate (P=0.10), correct hand position (P=0.46) and number of correct compressions (P=0.76). Ventilation volume was sufficient in 32% of the pupils, 18% had a correct compression depth and 59% had a correct compression rate.
CONCLUSION: Training efficacy with low-cost equipment was not different from training with a manikin. The outcome for all training strategies was suboptimal. The basics of CPR can be taught with alternative equipment if manikins are not available.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app