ArticlePeerJ2019
Nursing knowledge of and attitude in cardiopulmonary arrest: cross-sectional survey analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A quasi-experimental comparison of Kolb and Peyton educational approaches on CPR knowledge and performance among nurses.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Bridging the emergency response gap: evaluating CPR knowledge and preparedness among healthcare students at the University of Kalamoon.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of First Aid Knowledge at Different Stages of Education.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Anesthesia Providers in Public Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sana'a City, Yemen.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses are often the first to activate the chain of survival when a cardiorespiratory arrest happens. That is why it is crucial that they keep their knowledge and skills up-to-date and their attitudes to resuscitation are very important. The main aim of this study was to analyse whether the level of theoretical and practical understanding affected the attitudes of nursing staff.
methodsA questionnaire was designed using the Delphi technique (three rounds). The questionnaire was adjusted and it was piloted on a test-retest basis with a convenience sample of 30 registered nurses. The psychometric characteristics were evaluated using a sample of 347 nurses using Cronbach's alpha. Descriptive analysis was performed to describe the sociodemographic variables and Spearman's correlation coefficient to assess the relationship between two scale variables. Pearson's chi-squared test has been used to study the relationship between two categorical variables. Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were performed to establish relationships between the demographic/work related characteristics and the level of understanding.
resultsThe Knowledge and Attitude of Nurses in the Event of a Cardiorespiratory Arrest (CAEPCR) questionnaire comprised three sections: sociodemographic information, theoretical and practical understanding, and attitudes of ethical issues. Cronbach's alpha for the internal consistency of the attitudes questionnaire was 0.621. The knowledge that nurses self-reported with regard to cardiopulmonary arrest directly affected their attitudes. Their responses raised a number of bioethical issues.
conclusionsCAEPCR questionnaire is the first one which successfully linked knowledge of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the attitudes towards ethical issues Health policies should ensure that CPR training is mandatory for nurses and all healthcare workers, and this training should include the ethical aspects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.