Observational studyHealth promotion international2024
CPR training as a gender and rights-based healthcare issue.
Observational study in Health promotion international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Women's experiences and expectations during the menopause transition: a systematic qualitative narrative review.Health promotion international · 2025Pooled it
- The implementation of diverse skin-toned female manikins in hospital provider basic life support training.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Medical Student Perspectives on Female Anatomical Representation in CPR Training.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- "It's all about the money." Australian women's perspectives about menopause and the commercial determinants of health.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- CPR manikin diversity for BLS education: Current status mapped by an international cross-sectional survey and steps to reach health equity.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is not understood how cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, specifically the representation of sex in CPR manikins, contributes to inequitable outcomes in cardiac arrest survival. The aim of this study was to identify the sex and chest wall secondary sexual characteristics of CPR manikins on the global market. The secondary aim was to identify if manikin manufacturing companies had a publicly available sustainability policy or equivalent, and if these covered products were manufactured. We conducted an observational descriptive study of the secondary sex characteristics and named sex of CPR training manikins available on the global market, and equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), human rights and sustainability policies of the companies that manufacture them. Nine CPR manikin manufacturers were identified. Twenty CPR manikins were included for analysis. Of the 20 manikins, 75% were identified as male (n = 8, 40%) or no gender specified (n = 7, 35%) and all these had flat torsos-one had a breast overlay available. One company had a 2020 sustainability report that addressed EDI for the workforce only, and a 2023 report addresses this for products manufactured. Adult CPR manikins available globally are largely homogenous, flat-chested and do not have secondary sex characteristics or a named sex. One company had a sustainability report that referenced workforce only and has since committed to EDI for products manufactured. We urge CPR training providers and manufacturers to collectively promote a rights-based approach to healthcare aligned with the commercial determinants of health by committing to improving the diversity of CPR training manikins.
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.