Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28103818›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2017

A qualitative study to identify barriers to deployment and student training in the use of automated external defibrillators in schools.

Line Zinckernagel, Carolina Malta Hansen, Morten Hulvej Rod, Fredrik Folke, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Line ZinckernagelCentre for Intervention Research, National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 2, DK-1353, Copenhagen, Denmark. lizi@niph.dk.
Carolina Malta HansenDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900, Gentofte, Denmark.
Morten Hulvej RodCentre for Intervention Research, National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 2, DK-1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Fredrik FolkeDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900, Gentofte, Denmark.
Christian Torp-PedersenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej, DK-9000, Aalborg, Denmark.
Tine Tjørnhøj-ThomsenCentre for Intervention Research, National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 2, DK-1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKCapital Region of Denmark · DKGentofte Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudent training in use of automated external defibrillators and deployment of such defibrillators in schools is recommended to increase survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Low implementation rates have been observed, and even at schools with a defibrillator, challenges such as delayed access have been reported. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to the implementation of defibrillator training of students and deployment of defibrillators in schools.

methodsA qualitative study based on semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups with a total of 25 participants, nine school leaders, and 16 teachers at eight different secondary schools in Denmark (2012-2013). Thematic analysis was used to identify regular patterns of meaning using the technology acceptance model and focusing on the concepts of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

resultsSchool leaders and teachers are concerned that automated external defibrillators are potentially dangerous, overly technical, and difficult to use, which was related to their limited familiarity with them. They were ambiguous about whether or not students are the right target group or which grade is suitable for defibrillator training. They were also ambiguous about deployment of defibrillators at schools. Those only accounting for the risk of students, considering their schools to be small, and that time for professional help was limited, found the relevance to be low. Due to safety concerns, some recommended that defibrillators at schools should be inaccessible to students. They lacked knowledge about how they work and are operated, and about the defibrillators already placed at their campuses (e.g., how to access them). Prior training and even a little knowledge about defibrillators were crucial to their perception of student training but not for their considerations on the relevance of their placement at schools.

conclusionsIt is crucial for implementation of automated external defibrillators in schools to inform staff about how they work and are operated and that students are an appropriate target group for defibrillator training. Furthermore, it is important to provide schools with a basis for decision making about when to install defibrillators, and to ensure that school staff and students are informed about their placement.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCardiopulmonary ResuscitationDefibrillatorsDenmarkFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestQualitative ResearchSchoolsSchool TeachersTeacher TrainingAutomated external defibrillatorCardiopulmonary resuscitationDefibrillatorsImplementationOut-of-hospital cardiac arrestResuscitationSchoolsTechnology acceptance modelTraining

Identifiers

PMID28103818
PMCPMC5248449
OpenAlexW2579300472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.