Self-learning basic life support: A randomised controlled trial on learning conditions

Pedersen, Tina Heidi; Kasper, Nina; Hari, Roman; Egloff, Mike; Marx, David E.; Abegglen, Sandra; Greif, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.02.031

Cited by 28 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this trial, we found no statistical evidence of any difference in terms of effectiveness between self-learning training and instructor-led training for BLS, six months after intervention. This result is in accordance with the majority of previous studies [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], apart from one study which resulted in higher retention three months after self-directed training [16]. Self-training kits for BLS have been partially used both in facilitated training and for personal use and have been evaluated as effective [8,12,21,26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Potential causes may be limitations of the manikin, the duration of the training and that the participants were lay people without or with limited BLS experience. Our results are low when compared with those reported by Pedersen et al [16], who reported a median of 47% correct compressions for self-learning three months after training. Their participants were medical students and younger than those in our study and that could be one explanation.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptcontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Thirdly, we found that, when the participants self-assessed their own theoretical knowledge of compressions, ventilations and using an AED, the instructor-led training resulted in greater self-assessed knowledge directly after and for AED even six months after training. This is in relation to findings from Pedersen et al, 2018 [16]. Previous research has shown that competence, confidence and willingness increase regardless of self-or instructor-led education [15,27,28].…”

Section: A C C E P T E Dsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Around three million people in Sweden [2] from a population of 10 million inhabitants have participated in a BLS course, despite a wide spread education programme based on the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines. Previous studies reveal no differences in terms of effectiveness, when comparing self-versus instructor-led teaching [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], apart from one study in 2018 which reported higher retention for self-learning three months after training [16]. Despite several studies, we believe that there is a gap of large randomised controlled trials in workplaces with lay people included.…”

Section: Accepted M M a N U mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…The use of an on-site AED increases survival dramatically [3,36,37]. Self-directed training may be an easily available way of learning how to use an AED [16], despite the fact that the feedback from the instructor appears to be beneficial [29,38].…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Self-learning training versus instructor-led training for basic life support: A cluster randomised trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Accepted Manuscriptcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: A C C E P T E Dsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Accepted M M a N U mentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Self-learning training versus instructor-led training for basic life support: A cluster randomised trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Lehre in der Reanimation

Greif

Lockey

Breckwoldt

et al. 2021

Notfall Rettungsmed

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diese Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council basieren auf dem internationalen wissenschaftlichen Konsens 2020 zur kardiopulmonalen Reanimation mit Behandlungsempfehlungen (International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations [ILCOR] 2020 CoSTR). Dieser Abschnitt bietet Bürgern und Angehörigen der Gesundheitsberufe Anleitungen zum Lehren und Lernen der Kenntnisse, der Fertigkeiten und der Einstellungen zur Reanimation mit dem Ziel, das Überleben von Patienten nach Kreislaufstillstand zu verbessern.

show abstract

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Self-learning basic life support: A randomised controlled trial on learning conditions

Cited by 28 publications

References 37 publications

Self-learning training versus instructor-led training for basic life support: A cluster randomised trial

Self-learning training versus instructor-led training for basic life support: A cluster randomised trial

Lehre in der Reanimation

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About