ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2020
Training of Basic Life Support Among Lay Undergraduates: Development and Implementation of an Evidence-Based Protocol.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05522166 (The Effect of Digital Stories and Face-to-face Applied Basic Life Support Trainings on Knowledge and Skill Levels of Pre-service Teachers), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
The Effect of Digital Stories and Face-to-face Applied Basic Life Support Trainings on Knowledge and Skill Levels of Pre-service Teachers
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The dramatic increase in sudden cardiac deaths and the alarming low survival: A global call to action to improve outcome with the engagement of tertiary education system.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of a video-based refresher on cardiopulmonary resuscitation skill retention in college students: A single-blind randomized controlled trial.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important method to improve the prognosis of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest (CA). Basic life support (BLS) is the first step in CPR and is usually performed by the first witness. However, the general population has poor BLS skills due to the lack of efficient and practical training strategy. Several training initiatives could be used to improve this situation, and the challenge is to find the most efficient one in detail according to the actual setting. Repeated and effective BLS training increase bystander's confidence and willingness to perform BLS. Evidence-based instructional design is essential to improve the training of lay providers and ultimately improve resuscitation performance and patient outcomes.
objective1) To develop an evidence-based BLS training protocol for lay undergraduates; 2) to implement the protocol and 3) to evaluate the process of implementation.
methodsNine databases were searched to synthesize the best evidence. A protocol was formed by ranking evidence and considering university setting and students' preferences. We implemented this training protocol and evaluated its effects.
resultsWe achieved the three aims above. A total of 120 lay undergraduates received BLS training and retraining within 3 months. The students and teaching staff were satisfied with the training protocol and effect. The BLS training process was more clearly defined. The role of teaching assistants and the strategies to sustain training quality was proven to be crucial to the project's success.
conclusionThe development and implementation of an evidence-based protocol could elevate undergraduates' BLS skill and confidence.
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.