Web-based general public opinion study of automated versus manual external chest compression

Lapostolle, Frédéric; Bertrand, Philìppe; Agostinucci, Jean Marc; Pradeau, Catherine; Tazarourte, Karim; Grave, M.; Galinski, Michel; Adnet, Frédéric

doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201942

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nineteen studies, reported in 21 papers, met the criteria and were included for analysis. 7,27–46 Characteristics of included studies are listed in Table 1. Four studies were rated on the quality of their methods as ‘good’ (their findings had a low risk of bias); eight were rated as ‘fair’; and seven were rated as ‘poor’ (their findings had a high risk of bias) (See S2 in Supplementary Materials).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining 13 studies were cross-sectional general population surveys and were eligible because the sample was segmented by a socio economic indicator with findings reporting potential barriers or facilitators for the lowest category of the socio-demographic indicator. Eight studies reported findings by education level, 28,30,33,34,44–46 six by employment status or social class, 27,28,31,32,33,40 four by household income, 30,40,45,46 and one by neighbourhood income. 35 (Some studies reported by more than one indicator.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven surveys 31,32,34,39,45,46 and one intervention study 22,24 measured willingness to perform bystander CPR, some for CPR on specific victims. 36,37,39,46 Four cross-sectional surveys measured willingness to perform bystander CPR and found few differences by socio economic status.…”

Section: A Synthesis Of Findings From the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…45 A small survey in France found no differences by education level associated with preferred techniques to perform bystander CPR (manually, by automated device, or no preference (p = 0.09)). 34…”

Section: A Synthesis Of Findings From the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No data from bystander's perspective n=60 Not in an area of deprivation n=35 Not primary research n=20 Full-text unobtainable n=6 45 A small survey in France found no differences by education level associated with preferred techniques to perform bystander CPr (manually, by automated device, or no preference (p = 0.09)). 34 A survey in a low-income, predominantly African American urban neighbourhood 39 found that a high proportion of respondents were willing to perform CPr 'on anyone'. Of the three other studies that measured willingness to perform bystander CPr on specific groups or victims, neither a lower level of income nor level of education made a difference to survey responses.…”

Section: Initial Ft 'Sweep': Not In An Area Of Deprivation N=181mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Barriers and facilitators to delivering bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in deprived communities: a systematic review

Uny

Angus

Duncan

et al. 2022

Perspect Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is a higher incidence of cardiac arrest in economically deprived areas; however, data show that bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in those areas is lower. This results in lower survival rates, placing those communities at a double disadvantage. This systematic review explored the barriers and facilitators to engaging with bystander CPR in deprived communities. Methods: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they addressed any barrier or facilitator to performing bystander CPR or being trained in CPR or training others. Studies had to either be set in a deprived area or examine a deprived population. Selected studies were published between January 2000 and December 2017 and reported on primary research. No language limitations were applied. Searches were conducted in the following databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Unpublished ‘grey’ literature was also searched as well as the reference lists of any relevant studies. Results: The systematic review highlighted several main factors acting as barriers or facilitators to engaging with bystander CPR in deprived communities: (1) the willingness to learn or perform CPR, (2) the confidence to perform CPR, and (3) self-reported likelihood of performing CPR. The review also revealed additional barriers to engaging with CPR which are specific to – or more acute for – individuals from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds or areas. Discussion: We found little evidence suggesting that the willingness to perform or learn bystander CPR is lower in deprived communities compared to the general population. However, the confidence to perform CPR in deprived communities was affected by some measures of socioeconomic status. The results also crucially highlighted other barriers more acute in deprived communities: the risk to personal safety in administering CPR; the fear of legal consequences; and the lack of community cohesion and other cultural barriers.

show abstract