Barriers to action: behavioral determinants of bystander intervention in medical emergencies - a scoping review.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sheza Hassan, Ali Bin Abdul Jabbar, Shahmeer Raza, Sneha Bheesham, Michelle Demetres, Yasir Shafiq, Junaid Razzak
{"title":"Barriers to action: behavioral determinants of bystander intervention in medical emergencies - a scoping review.","authors":"Sheza Hassan, Ali Bin Abdul Jabbar, Shahmeer Raza, Sneha Bheesham, Michelle Demetres, Yasir Shafiq, Junaid Razzak","doi":"10.1186/s12873-026-01572-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bystander intervention at the scene of illness or injury can significantly impact the outcomes of emergencies. This scoping review aims to identify the determinants of bystander behavior in such scenarios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and grey literature, resulting in 3957 studies. After removing duplicates, 2499 studies were screened for titles and abstracts by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. A total of 257 articles were then subjected to full-text screening, leading to the inclusion of 42 studies for data extraction. Data were collected on various factors, including the type of emergency, region, area of study, setting, age group, gender, prior training, presence of bystander intervention, and determinants of behavior.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In studies presenting age‑stratified analyses, bystander intervention was reported in 75% of studies involving individuals aged ≤ 18 years and in 69% of studies focused on adults. Where training status was reported, 18% of adult‑oriented studies indicated prior training, with no such reporting among studies involving individuals ≤ 18 years. Cardiac arrest was the most common type of emergency (95%). Most studies were conducted in community settings (76%), with the remainder in institutional settings (24%). Negative determinants included lack of knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy, with variations between community and institutional settings. Motivators for intervention, though less frequently reported, included young age, education/training, and a supportive environment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The review highlights key barriers and motivators for bystander intervention, emphasizing the need for targeted education and training programs, as well as supportive environments to enhance bystander response in emergencies. These findings provide a foundation for developing multifaceted strategies to improve bystander behavior and emergency outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-026-01572-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bystander intervention at the scene of illness or injury can significantly impact the outcomes of emergencies. This scoping review aims to identify the determinants of bystander behavior in such scenarios.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and grey literature, resulting in 3957 studies. After removing duplicates, 2499 studies were screened for titles and abstracts by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. A total of 257 articles were then subjected to full-text screening, leading to the inclusion of 42 studies for data extraction. Data were collected on various factors, including the type of emergency, region, area of study, setting, age group, gender, prior training, presence of bystander intervention, and determinants of behavior.

Results: In studies presenting age‑stratified analyses, bystander intervention was reported in 75% of studies involving individuals aged ≤ 18 years and in 69% of studies focused on adults. Where training status was reported, 18% of adult‑oriented studies indicated prior training, with no such reporting among studies involving individuals ≤ 18 years. Cardiac arrest was the most common type of emergency (95%). Most studies were conducted in community settings (76%), with the remainder in institutional settings (24%). Negative determinants included lack of knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy, with variations between community and institutional settings. Motivators for intervention, though less frequently reported, included young age, education/training, and a supportive environment.

Conclusion: The review highlights key barriers and motivators for bystander intervention, emphasizing the need for targeted education and training programs, as well as supportive environments to enhance bystander response in emergencies. These findings provide a foundation for developing multifaceted strategies to improve bystander behavior and emergency outcomes.

行动障碍:医疗紧急情况中旁观者干预的行为决定因素-范围审查。
背景:在疾病或受伤现场的旁观者干预可以显著影响紧急情况的结果。这个范围审查的目的是确定旁观者的行为在这种情况下的决定因素。方法:综合检索PubMed、Cochrane、b谷歌Scholar、CINAHL和灰色文献,共3957项研究。在去除重复后,由两名独立审稿人筛选2499项研究的标题和摘要,冲突由第三名审稿人解决。然后对257篇文章进行全文筛选,最终纳入42项研究进行数据提取。收集了各种因素的数据,包括紧急情况类型、地区、研究领域、环境、年龄组、性别、先前培训、旁观者干预的存在和行为决定因素。结果:在进行年龄分层分析的研究中,75%的年龄≤18岁的研究和69%的成年人研究报告了旁观者干预。在报告了培训状态的研究中,18%的成人研究表明有过培训,而在涉及≤18岁个体的研究中没有这样的报告。心脏骤停是最常见的紧急情况(95%)。大多数研究在社区环境中进行(76%),其余研究在机构环境中进行(24%)。消极决定因素包括缺乏知识、技能和自我效能感,在社区和机构环境之间存在差异。干预的动机,虽然较少报道,包括年轻,教育/培训,和一个支持性的环境。结论:该综述强调了旁观者干预的主要障碍和激励因素,强调需要有针对性的教育和培训计划,以及支持性环境来增强旁观者在紧急情况下的反应。这些发现为制定改善旁观者行为和应急结果的多方面策略提供了基础。
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
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书