Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41335586›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Bystanders' attitudes towards drone delivered Automated External Defibrillators for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A qualitative interview study.

Celia J Bernstein, Christopher M Smith, Carl Powell, Mary O'Sullivan, Mark Holt, Keith Couper, Nigel Rees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Celia J BernsteinWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Christopher M SmithWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2289-8750
Carl PowellWelsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust, Pre-Hospital Emergency Research Unit (PERU), Institute of Life Sciences Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.
Mary O'SullivanPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative.
Mark HoltPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative.
Keith CouperCritical Care Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Nigel ReesWelsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust, Pre-Hospital Emergency Research Unit (PERU), Institute of Life Sciences Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8799-5335

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) by the public at an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) increases patient survival, but AEDs are infrequently used. Using drones to deliver AEDs may be one way to increase uptake, but there is limited understanding about what members of the public think about this. The aim of the study was to explore public attitudes towards drone AED delivery for OHCA.

methodsWe conducted 14 remote, semi-structured interviews with real-life OHCA bystanders. Participants were recruited via social media, a UK cardiac arrest survivor charity and the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust. We analysed data using the Theoretical Domains Framework and mapped findings to the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B) to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to the retrieval and use of drone-delivered AEDs. We used The Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to optimise use of drone-delivered AEDs.

resultsParticipants experienced varying levels of physical and social opportunities in relation to (un)available AEDs and (in)appropriate support from the call-handler, affecting the likelihood of them performing CPR and/or using an AED effectively. Most participants were unsure about how to use an AED, and none knew how a drone-delivered AED system would work in practice. Many participants questioned whether they would possess sufficient capability and motivation to retrieve and/or operate a drone-delivered AED during a time-critical emergency. There were five key themes for potential interventions: incorporating information about drone-delivered AED use into pre-existing training programmes and materials; ensuring drone use complies with specific regulatory and/or legislative requirements; making the drone-delivered AED easy to identify and access; optimising call-handler scripts to incorporate drone-delivered AED use; providing social support via a robust co-responder model to complement drone-delivered AED use.

conclusionsParticipants accepted drone-delivered AEDs for OHCA, but were unsure if it would be effective. They identified several issues that we addressed through the development of a comprehensive intervention framework. A comprehensive call-handler script that incorporates drone-delivered AED use and support for bystanders was the most salient potential intervention for future testing by relevant stakeholders.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationDefibrillatorsOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID41335586
PMCPMC12674532

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.