ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Kids Save Lives - The kids' and teachers' view: How school children and schoolteachers would alter a BLS course designed by specialists.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medium-term retention and household diffusion of basic life support skills after a school-wide educational intervention: PLANIFICARCP PROJECT.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- DESLIVES: Adolescents learning basic life support through reflective learning. A proof of concept.Resuscitation plus · 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
Background: Training schoolchildren in basic life support ('Kids-Save-Lives' training) is widely believed to improve outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Numerous programmes have been launched, but to our knowledge, neither children nor schoolteachers have been directly involved in designing these courses. This is unfortunate, as it is well-known that children (as the target goup of training) learn differently from adults. We therefore sought to explore the view of schoolchildren and their teachers on the design of a 'Kids-Save-Lives' course. Methods: We designed a state-of-the-art, 90-min BLS training and delivered it to all 13 classes of a secondary community school (children aged 12-16). Directly after each training, we performed Video-Stimulated Recall (VSR) with 2 children and 2 schoolteachers. For VSR, we presented video sequences from defined sections of the training and related semi-structured questions to these sections. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Twenty-four children and 24 teachers participated in the VSR. The overall satisfaction with the training was very high. Participants especially appreciated the brief theoretical introduction using a video, the high practical involvement, and the final scenario. Children suggested the program could be improved by better linking the video to the children's world, increasing excitement and action, and limiting the group size in the final scenario. Teachers suggested incorporating more theoretical background, using terms and language more consistently, and better integrating the program into the school curriculum. Conclusions: Although very satisfied with a state-of-the-art 'Kids-Save-Lives' training, children and teachers made important suggestions for improvement.
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.