ArticleBMJ open2026
Process evaluation of a basic life support educational intervention (FirstCPR cluster randomised study) delivered at community organisations in New South Wales, Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe FirstCPR cluster randomised trial delivered multimodal basic life support (BLS) learning opportunities to community organisations. An a priori process evaluation examined intervention implementation, including participation, reach, uptake and member engagement.
methodsThe study used a multimethod process evaluation. Data were collected via semistructured interviews, focus group discussions, participant surveys, study records, web analytics and in-field observations. These sources captured participation patterns and implementation measures (delivery, reach, uptake and engagement: opt-in to digital messages and attendance at training sessions), as well as reasons for refusals and withdrawals. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and organised using the
resultsIntervention uptake and engagement varied significantly across organisations, with greater success observed in social and faith-based groups. Of the 82 intervention clusters, 78 (95%) received intervention materials; 74 (90%) engaged in at least one activity and 15 (18%) engaged in all activities. Participation was primarily driven by the organisation's leadership interest and support in providing BLS training to members, and by the time available to facilitate intervention activities. The presence of a dedicated liaison/champion emerged as the most critical enabler of member engagement and implementation. Feedback recommended concise, simple and culturally tailored modules, with practical components delivered in shorter, convenient sessions. Intervention delivery was affected by contextual challenges, including COVID-19 disruptions that limited in-field recruitment and group activities.
conclusionsProcess evaluation can strengthen community-based interventions by identifying mechanisms and contextual factors that shape implementation and engagement. Partnering with social and faith-based organisations may be an effective approach to disseminating educational programmes such as life-saving skills to lay communities. Minimising research burden and ensuring organisational leadership support may improve participation while brief, practical and culturally tailored training may enhance engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000367842.
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.