ArticleHealth education research2026
Effectiveness and retention of learning the use of an automated external defibrillator in adolescents: a comparative analysis of three teaching methods.
Article in Health education research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the effectiveness of three teaching methods (traditional, video-based, and augmented reality training) on the acquisition, performance quality, and retention of automated external defibrillator skills in secondary school students. A quasi-experimental study was conducted with post-intervention measurements and a 3-month follow-up. 193 untrained students (aged 13-15) were divided into three intervention groups (traditional training group, video training group, and augmented reality training group). Skills were individually assessed using a simulation manikin immediately post-intervention and at a 3-month follow-up, measuring shock effectiveness, safety, quality, and time. Immediately after training, all methods achieved high rates of effective and safe shocks, though performance quality was superior in the digitally supported groups. At 3 months, the augmented reality training group maintained a 100% effective shock rate, whereas the traditional training group showed a significant decrease. While execution times were similar initially, differences emerged during follow-up. In conclusion, although all methodologies are effective for initial skill acquisition, digital resource-based training promotes higher execution quality and superior long-term retention, strongly supporting their implementation in educational contexts.
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.