Kids save lives: Who should train schoolchildren in resuscitation? A systematic review

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
A. Mollo , S. Beck , A. Degel , R. Greif , J. Breckwoldt
{"title":"Kids save lives: Who should train schoolchildren in resuscitation? A systematic review","authors":"A. Mollo ,&nbsp;S. Beck ,&nbsp;A. Degel ,&nbsp;R. Greif ,&nbsp;J. Breckwoldt","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>CPR training for schoolchildren to increase bystander CPR-rates is widely applied. HCPs are regarded as the instructor gold standard, but using non-HCP instructors (e.g., peer-tutors, schoolteachers, medical students) challenges that. This systematic review assesses whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for children led by peer-tutors, schoolteachers, or medical students results in different learning outcomes to training by health-care professionals (HCPs).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched studies that compared CPR training for schoolchildren <em>(population)</em> delivered by peer-tutors, schoolteachers, or medical students <em>(intervention),</em> with training led by HCPs <em>(comparison),</em> assessing student knowledge, skills, willingness and/or confidence to perform CPR <em>(outcome)</em>. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials <em>(study design).</em> Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cinahl, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Eric were searched from inception until December 23rd, 2023 <em>(timeframe)</em>. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, full text screening, bias assessment, and grading of certainty of evidence. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, and registered the review with PROSPERO.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 9′092 studies identified, 14 were included. Comparison of intervention groups to HCP-led training showed similar overall results (knowledge, skills, self-confidence). Superior results for HCP training were only reported for ‘ventilation volume’, while schoolteachers and medical students achieved superior knowledge transfer. A meta-analysis was possible for ‘compression depth’ between peer-tutors and HCPs showing no significant differences. Certainty of evidence was ‘low’ to ‘very low’.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This systematic review of CPR training for school children revealed that peer-tutors, schoolteachers and medical students achieve similar educational outcomes compared to those of HCPs. Non-HCPs training schoolchildren is an appropriate cost-efficient alternative and easy to implement in school curricula.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100755"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002066/pdfft?md5=d33c753d6827a2cac2dbad3d5705d22d&pid=1-s2.0-S2666520424002066-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

CPR training for schoolchildren to increase bystander CPR-rates is widely applied. HCPs are regarded as the instructor gold standard, but using non-HCP instructors (e.g., peer-tutors, schoolteachers, medical students) challenges that. This systematic review assesses whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for children led by peer-tutors, schoolteachers, or medical students results in different learning outcomes to training by health-care professionals (HCPs).

Methods

We searched studies that compared CPR training for schoolchildren (population) delivered by peer-tutors, schoolteachers, or medical students (intervention), with training led by HCPs (comparison), assessing student knowledge, skills, willingness and/or confidence to perform CPR (outcome). We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (study design). Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cinahl, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Eric were searched from inception until December 23rd, 2023 (timeframe). Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, full text screening, bias assessment, and grading of certainty of evidence. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, and registered the review with PROSPERO.

Results

Of 9′092 studies identified, 14 were included. Comparison of intervention groups to HCP-led training showed similar overall results (knowledge, skills, self-confidence). Superior results for HCP training were only reported for ‘ventilation volume’, while schoolteachers and medical students achieved superior knowledge transfer. A meta-analysis was possible for ‘compression depth’ between peer-tutors and HCPs showing no significant differences. Certainty of evidence was ‘low’ to ‘very low’.

Conclusion

This systematic review of CPR training for school children revealed that peer-tutors, schoolteachers and medical students achieve similar educational outcomes compared to those of HCPs. Non-HCPs training schoolchildren is an appropriate cost-efficient alternative and easy to implement in school curricula.

儿童拯救生命:谁应该对学龄儿童进行复苏培训?系统回顾
对学龄儿童进行心肺复苏培训以提高旁观者心肺复苏率的目的已得到广泛应用。高级保健人员被视为指导者的黄金标准,但使用非高级保健人员指导者(如同伴导师、学校教师、医科学生)则对这一标准提出了挑战。本系统性综述评估了由同伴导师、学校教师或医科学生指导的儿童心肺复苏(CPR)培训与由医疗保健专业人员(HCP)指导的培训是否会产生不同的学习效果。方法我们检索了一些研究,这些研究比较了由同伴导师、学校教师或医科学生(干预)与由医疗保健专业人员(HCP)指导的学龄儿童(人群)心肺复苏培训(对比),评估了学生的知识、技能、意愿和/或进行心肺复苏的信心(结果)。我们纳入了随机和非随机对照试验(研究设计)。我们对 Medline、Embase、Psychinfo、Cinahl、Cochrane、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Eric 进行了检索,检索时间从开始到 2023 年 12 月 23 日(时间范围)。两位独立审稿人进行了标题、摘要、全文筛选、偏倚评估和证据确定性分级。我们遵循了系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,并在 PROSPERO 注册了该综述。将干预组与保健医生主导的培训进行比较,结果显示总体结果(知识、技能、自信心)相似。只有在 "通气量 "方面,医生培训取得了较好的结果,而学校教师和医科学生则在知识传授方面取得了较好的结果。在 "压缩深度 "方面,同伴辅导员和保健医生之间的荟萃分析结果显示没有显著差异。证据的确定性为 "低 "至 "极低"。结论这篇针对学龄儿童心肺复苏培训的系统性综述显示,同伴导师、学校教师和医科学生的教育效果与高级保健人员的相似。由非保健医生对学龄儿童进行培训是一种具有成本效益的适当选择,而且易于在学校课程中实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信