Aim: To compare the effectiveness of two basic life support (BLS) training interventions. Methods: This experimental trial enrolled 1,301 lay people in BLS training. The participants were cluster randomised to either self-learning training or to traditional instructor-led training. Both groups used the Mini-Anne Kit (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) and standardised film instructions. After training, the participants practical skills were measured on a Resusci Anne manikin and an AED trainer with the PC SkillReporting System (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway). The primary outcome was the total score from the modified Cardiff Test of basic life support with automated external defibrillation (19-70 points), six months after training. The secondary outcomes were total score directly after training and quality of individual variables, self-assessed knowledge, confidence and willingness to act, directly and six months after training. Results: For primary outcome six months after training there was no statistically significant difference (p=0.44) between the total score for the self-learning group (n=670; median 59, IQR 55-62) compared with the instructor-led group (n=561; median 59, IQR 55-63). The instructor-led training resulted in a statistically significant higher total score (median 61 versus 59, p<0.0001), self-assessed knowledge and willingness to act, directly after training (secondary outcomes) compared with the self-learning training. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in practical skills or willingness to act when comparing self-learning training with instructor-led training six months after training in BLS. However, directly after the intervention, practical skills were better when the training was led by an instructor.

Background Effective education in basic life support (BLS) may improve the early initiation of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillation (CPR-AED). Aim To compare the learning outcome in terms of practical skills and knowledge of BLS after participating in learning activities related to BLS, with and without web-based education in cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Methods Laymen (n = 2,623) were cluster randomised to either BLS education or to web-based education in CVD before BLS training. The participants were assessed by a questionnaire for theoretical knowledge and then by a simulated scenario for practical skills. The total score for practical skills in BLS six months after training was the primary outcome. The total score for practical skills directly after training, separate variables and self-assessed knowledge, confidence and willingness, directly and six months after training, were the secondary outcomes. Results BLS with web-based education was more effective than BLS without web-based education and obtained a statistically significant higher total score for practical skills at six months (mean 58.8, SD 5.0 vs mean 58.0, SD 5.0; p = 0.03) and directly after training (mean 59.6, SD 4.8 vs mean 58.7, SD 4.9; p = 0.004). Conclusion A web-based education in CVD in addition to BLS training enhanced the learning outcome with a statistically significant higher total score for performed practical skills in BLS as compared to BLS training alone. However, in terms of the outcomes, the differences were minor, and the clinical relevance of our findings has a limited practical impact.

No abstract

In this article, we present supplementary data to the article entitled “Self-learning training versus instructor-led training in basic life support: a cluster randomised trial” [1]. In three supplementary files, we present the informed consent of the included participants, the modified instrument to calculate the total score for practical skills called “the Cardiff Test of basic life support and automated external defibrillation” and the questionnaire to obtain background factors, theoretical knowledge, self-assessed knowledge and confidence and willingness to act, distributed directly after training and six months after training. The results of comparisons between “directly after intervention” and “six months after intervention”, for each training group separately, are presented in three tables. We also present two tables showing the reasons why the participants were not prepared to perform compressions and/or ventilations in the event of a sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

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 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 In this multi-arm trial, lay participants (n = 2623) from workplaces were cluster randomised into 16 different BLS interventions, of which one, instructor-led and film-based BLS training, was classified as control and standard, with which the other 15 were compared. The learning outcome was the total score for practical skills in BLS calculated using the modified Cardiff Test. 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 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 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03618888. Registered August 07, 2018—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03618888