Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov 18;31(1):161-173.
doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01160-3. eCollection 2021 Feb.

Learning Outcome After Different Combinations of Seven Learning Activities in Basic Life Support on Laypersons in Workplaces: a Cluster Randomised, Controlled Trial

Helene Bylow  1 , Thomas Karlsson  2 , Margret Lepp  3   4   5 , Andreas Claesson  6 , Jonny Lindqvist  7 , Leif Svensson  6 , Johan Herlitz  1   7   8
Affiliations

Learning Outcome After Different Combinations of Seven Learning Activities in Basic Life Support on Laypersons in Workplaces: a Cluster Randomised, Controlled Trial

Helene Bylow et al. Med Sci Educ. .

Abstract

Background: The goal for laypersons after training in basic life support (BLS) is to act effectively in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest situation. However, it is still unclear whether BLS training targeting laypersons at workplaces is optimal or whether other effective learning activities are possible.

Aim: The primary aim was to evaluate whether there were other modes of BLS training that improved learning outcome as compared with a control group, i.e. standard BLS training, six months after training, and secondarily directly after training.

Methods: In this multi-arm trial, lay participants (n = 2623) from workplaces were cluster randomised into 16 different BLS interventions, of which one, instructor-led and film-based BLS training, was classified as control and standard, with which the other 15 were compared. The learning outcome was the total score for practical skills in BLS calculated using the modified Cardiff Test.

Results: Four different training modes showed a significantly higher total score compared with standard (mean difference 2.3-2.9). The highest score was for the BLS intervention including a preparatory web-based education, instructor-led training, film-based instructions, reflective questions and a chest compression feedback device (95% CI for difference 0.9-5.0), 6 months after training.

Conclusion: BLS training adding several different combinations of a preparatory web-based education, reflective questions and chest compression feedback to instructor-led training and film-based instructions obtained higher modified Cardiff Test total scores 6 months after training compared with standard BLS training alone. The differences were small in magnitude and the clinical relevance of our findings needs to be further explored.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03618888. Registered August 07, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03618888.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01160-3.

Keywords: Automated external defibrillation; Basic life support; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Learning activities; Learning outcome; Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing InterestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram. 15 different basic life support (BLS) training interventions were compared in a multi-arm parallel design with one control group, number 9 (no. 9), i.e. a standard instructor-led and film-based BLS training. The experimental interventions from the multi-arm cluster randomised controlled trial, numbers 1–8 and 10–16, were additional to practical BLS training and consisted of seven learning activities in different combinations. The total number of participants for each intervention, 1–16, is shown in parentheses
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Perkins GD, Handley AJ, Koster RW, Castrén M, Smyth MA, Olasveengen T, Monsieurs KG, Raffay V, Gräsner JT, Wenzel V, Ristagno G, Soar J, Bossaert LL, Caballero A, Cassan P, Granja C, Sandroni C, Zideman DA, Nolan JP, Maconochie I, Greif R. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 2. Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation. Resuscitation. 2015;95:81–99. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Greif R, Lockey AS, Conaghan P, Lippert A, De Vries W, Monsieurs KG. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 10. Education and implementation of resuscitation: Section 10. Education and implementation of resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;95:288–301. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kleinman EM, Perkins DG, Bhanji EF, Billi EJ, Bray WJ, Callaway CC, et al. ILCOR Scientific Knowledge Gaps and Clinical Research Priorities for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care: A Consensus Statement. Circulation. 2018;137:e802–ee19. - PubMed
    1. Cheng MA, Nadkarni BV, Mancini AM, Hunt HE, Sinz ME, Merchant PR, et al. Resuscitation Education Science: Educational Strategies to Improve Outcomes From Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;138:e82–e122. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000583. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019:Cir0000000000000659. - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources