Open AccessThe effectiveness of traditional Basic Life Support training and alternative technology‐enhanced methods in high schools
Author(s) -
Onan Arif,
Turan Sevgi,
Elcin Melih,
Erbil Bulent,
Bulut Şule Çınar
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
hong kong journal of emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.145
H-Index - 12
eISSN - 2309-5407
pISSN - 1024-9079
DOI - 10.1177/1024907918782239
Subject(s) - basic life support , checklist , medicine , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , significant difference , advanced life support , confidence interval , physical therapy , resuscitation , psychology , surgery , cognitive psychology
Background: Implementation of resuscitation training in school programs is a promising approach to improve rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation use by trained bystanders. Unfortunately, theoretical cardiopulmonary resuscitation instruction alone is not sufficiently effective in developing practical skills. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of traditional Basic Life Support training and alternative instructional methods to achieve learning objectives of Basic Life Support education. Methods: This quasi‐experimental study was conducted in a secondary school in Ankara, Turkey. Eighty‐three voluntary students were randomly allocated to theoretical (Group A), video‐based (Group B), and mobile‐assisted video‐based instructions (Group C). All groups were led by the course teacher. Assessments were conducted in training and again 1 week later. Assessments were based on Basic Life Support knowledge and confidence performance scores. Results: Statistically significant difference was found for the groups’ Confidence Scale scores (F(2, 73) = 3.513, p = 0.035, ηp 2 = 0.088); Group C (6.76 ± 1.70) scored higher than Group A. The groups’ Basic Life Support checklist scores were statistically significant (F(2, 73) = 28.050, p = 0.000, ηp 2 = 0.435); Group C (32.32 ± 3.84) scored higher than the other groups. Statistically significant difference was found for the groups’ measurable Basic Life Support scores (F(2, 73) = 13.527, p = 0.000, ηp 2 = 0.270); and Group C (23.76 ± 3.98) scored higher than the other groups. Conclusion: Our findings showed that all instruction methods led to increased Basic Life Support knowledge scores. The mobile‐assisted program significantly increased knowledge scores. Same‐group high‐quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation parameters were more positive than the other instruction groups except for hand position. Group C students expressed higher confidence in their ability to act in an emergency when witnessing a victim collapse.