ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Insights from a multinational survey on ERC courses: a cross-sectional analysis of participant and instructor perspectives.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The European Resuscitation Council course strategy project - developing courses fit for the future.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: European Resuscitation Council (ERC) life support courses are delivered internationally to standardise resuscitation. Given advances in educational science, evolving learner needs, and rapid technological innovation, ongoing evaluation is required to ensure these courses continue to meet expectations. This study aimed to identify priorities for course delivery, teaching and assessment strategies, and to inform future course development. Methods: From May to June 2025, the ERC Course Strategy Taskforce conducted two web-based surveys among course participants and instructors (10 and 22 items, respectively). The surveys included single-response items, Likert-scale ratings, and open-text questions addressing teaching background, course delivery, assessment practices, and views on course structure and materials. Data were analysed using a mixed-methods approach, with descriptive statistics applied to quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis to qualitative responses. Results: Responses from 13,989 participants and 1923 unique instructors across all ERC course types were analysed. Participant satisfaction was high (mean 9.13/10); 92.8% reported increased confidence in real-life resuscitation, and 99.5% rated the on-site component positively. Instructors favoured continuous assessment for evaluating technical skills (95.2%), non-technical skills (92.5%), and professional attitudes (96.2%), with 87.1% supporting its combination with a summative endpoint. Pre-course multiple choice question testing (85.7%) and mandatory instructor preparation (90.8%) were widely endorsed. Qualitative findings highlighted the need to further develop the ERC Course System, expand specialised content, and enable more personalised delivery formats. Conclusion: ERC courses are highly valued and should evolve towards competency-based assessment, structured faculty development, and enhanced digital infrastructure to maintain relevance, inclusivity, and educational impact.
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.