Digital Stop The Bleed® training compared with in-person Stop The Bleed® training: Human instructors needed to demonstrate psychomotor skills.

IF 2
Isaac Salisbury, Silvia Manzanero, Chiara Santomauro, Sarah Pearce, Jourdaine Young, Rebekah Young, Matthew Jennings, Frances Williamson, Michael Muller
{"title":"Digital Stop The Bleed® training compared with in-person Stop The Bleed® training: Human instructors needed to demonstrate psychomotor skills.","authors":"Isaac Salisbury, Silvia Manzanero, Chiara Santomauro, Sarah Pearce, Jourdaine Young, Rebekah Young, Matthew Jennings, Frances Williamson, Michael Muller","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2026.113666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stop the Bleed® (STB) training can effectively prepare first responders to intervene and prevent the injured from dying from uncontrolled bleeding, but traditional in-person instruction limits the number of people who can access training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital STB training package consisting of an animated video and a short interactive quiz, compared with conventional instructor-led training.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Pseudo-randomised non-inferiority simulation study with N = 93 layperson participants recruited at a single health service precinct. Groups were randomised to either in-person training with an instructor or digital training on a laptop. Participants' knowledge and ability to perform STB bleeding control techniques was assessed with a manikin arm. Participant self-rating and self-efficacy were compared with performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants' mean (standard deviation) knowledge scores were significantly non-inferior in the digital group (9.74 (0.26)) compared with in-person (9.62 (0.35), p = 0.003) at a non-inferiority margin of 0.2 SDs. However, digital training participants succeeded less frequently at wound packing (80%) and tourniquet application (52%) compared to in-person training participants (100% packing and 86% tourniquet). Participants' self-efficacy ratings of performance correlated poorly with actual performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital Stop the Bleed® training was as effective as instructor-led training for teaching laypersons the recognition and theory of immediate management of life-threatening bleeding. Psychomotor skills (packing, tourniquet) were inferior, highlighting the utility of observing physical demonstration for skill acquisition. These findings inform future improvements to digital STB training and suggest that the place of digital training in the widespread rollout of STB is to supplement rather than replace instructor-led training.</p>","PeriodicalId":94042,"journal":{"name":"Injury","volume":" ","pages":"113666"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2026.113666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Stop the Bleed® (STB) training can effectively prepare first responders to intervene and prevent the injured from dying from uncontrolled bleeding, but traditional in-person instruction limits the number of people who can access training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital STB training package consisting of an animated video and a short interactive quiz, compared with conventional instructor-led training.

Study design: Pseudo-randomised non-inferiority simulation study with N = 93 layperson participants recruited at a single health service precinct. Groups were randomised to either in-person training with an instructor or digital training on a laptop. Participants' knowledge and ability to perform STB bleeding control techniques was assessed with a manikin arm. Participant self-rating and self-efficacy were compared with performance.

Results: Participants' mean (standard deviation) knowledge scores were significantly non-inferior in the digital group (9.74 (0.26)) compared with in-person (9.62 (0.35), p = 0.003) at a non-inferiority margin of 0.2 SDs. However, digital training participants succeeded less frequently at wound packing (80%) and tourniquet application (52%) compared to in-person training participants (100% packing and 86% tourniquet). Participants' self-efficacy ratings of performance correlated poorly with actual performance.

Conclusions: Digital Stop the Bleed® training was as effective as instructor-led training for teaching laypersons the recognition and theory of immediate management of life-threatening bleeding. Psychomotor skills (packing, tourniquet) were inferior, highlighting the utility of observing physical demonstration for skill acquisition. These findings inform future improvements to digital STB training and suggest that the place of digital training in the widespread rollout of STB is to supplement rather than replace instructor-led training.

数字Stop The Bleed®培训与面对面Stop The Bleed®培训的比较:人类教练需要展示精神运动技能。
背景:Stop the Bleed®(STB)培训可以有效地为急救人员进行干预做好准备,防止伤者因无法控制的出血而死亡,但传统的面对面指导限制了接受培训的人数。本研究的目的是评估由动画视频和简短互动测验组成的数字机顶盒培训包与传统教师指导的培训相比的有效性。研究设计:伪随机非劣效性模拟研究,N = 在单一卫生服务区招募了93名外行参与者。这些小组被随机分为两组,一组由教练亲自进行培训,另一组在笔记本电脑上进行数字培训。参与者的知识和能力进行性传播感染出血控制技术的评估与假臂。将参与者的自我评价和自我效能与绩效进行比较。结果:数字组参与者的平均(标准差)知识得分(9.74(0.26))显著优于面对面组(9.62 (0.35),p = 0.003),非劣效边际为0.2 SDs。然而,与现场培训参与者(100%包扎和86%止血带)相比,数字培训参与者在伤口包扎(80%)和止血带应用(52%)方面的成功率较低。参与者的自我效能评价与实际表现的相关性很差。结论:Digital Stop the Bleed®培训与教师指导的培训一样有效,可以教授外行人对危及生命的出血的认识和立即处理理论。精神运动技能(包装,止血带)较差,突出了观察身体示范对技能习得的效用。这些发现为数字化机顶盒培训的未来改进提供了信息,并表明数字化培训在广泛推广机顶盒中的地位是补充而不是取代教师主导的培训。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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