ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
From spectator to lifesaver: a six-month evaluation of bystander training in CPR and bleeding control.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveLow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to bear the major burden of morbidity and mortality associated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and life-threatening bleeding post-trauma. While bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and bleeding control trainings in developed countries have assessed their impact on bystanders’ knowledge and ability to act during an emergency, limited studies have been conducted in low-resource settings, specifically in the context of bystanders’ self-efficacy and confidence after training. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the impact of a novel bystander training program by assessing the change in knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy of laypeople in performing CPR and bleeding control before and after training.
methodsA prospective study was implemented at a healthcare facility in a South Asian LMIC to determine the impact of a national initiative aimed at providing CPR and bleeding control skills to its citizens. Adult (≥ 18 years), non-medical employees of the institution were included. Data on participants’ demographics, knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy in performing CPR and bleeding control were collected before (Time 1), immediately post-training (Time 2), and six-months post-training (Time 3). These responses were compared to ascertain the change in identified parameters using percentages and paired t-tests, with a p-value < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
resultsOf 200 respondents, 89.0% (n = 178) had no prior training in CPR or bleeding control. A significant increase in knowledge and self-efficacy was noted for both the skills from time 1 to 2 and from time 1 to 3 (all p-values < 0.001), without any association noted with their educational status. However, a decrease was noted in both these parameters from time 2 to 3, indicating the need for timely refresher trainings. A considerable increase was seen in both short- and long-term confidence of participants in performing CPR and bleeding control, with a notable decrease in fears/concerns about injuring themselves/victims or getting sued.
conclusionThe empowerment of bystanders as first responders can play a pivotal role in saving lives. Conducting biannual refresher trainings, encouraging bystander protection at a policy level, and expanding the program regardless of the participants’ education can make such training effective and sustainable in low-resource settings.
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.