心肺复苏混合培训与传统复习培训的效果:前瞻性观察研究。

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Cheng-Yu Chien, Shang-Li Tsai, Chien-Hsiung Huang, Ming-Fang Wang, Chi-Chun Lin, Chen-Bin Chen, Li-Heng Tsai, Hsiao-Jung Tseng, Yan-Bo Huang, Chip-Jin Ng
{"title":"心肺复苏混合培训与传统复习培训的效果:前瞻性观察研究。","authors":"Cheng-Yu Chien, Shang-Li Tsai, Chien-Hsiung Huang, Ming-Fang Wang, Chi-Chun Lin, Chen-Bin Chen, Li-Heng Tsai, Hsiao-Jung Tseng, Yan-Bo Huang, Chip-Jin Ng","doi":"10.2196/52230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Generally, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills decline substantially over time. By combining web-based self-regulated learning with hands-on practice, blended training can be a time- and resource-efficient approach enabling individuals to acquire or refresh CPR skills at their convenience. However, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of blended CPR refresher training compared with that of the traditional method.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigated and compared the effectiveness of traditional and blended CPR training through 6-month and 12-month refresher sessions with CPR ability indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study recruited participants aged ≥18 years from the Automated External Defibrillator Donation Project. The participants were divided into 4 groups based on the format of the CPR training and refresher training received: (1) initial traditional training (a 30-minute instructor-led, hands-on session) and 6-month traditional refresher training (Traditional6 group), (2) initial traditional training and 6-month blended refresher training (an 18-minute e-learning module; Mixed6 group), (3) initial traditional training and 12-month blended refresher training (Mixed12 group), and (4) initial blended training and 6-month blended refresher training (Blended6 group). CPR knowledge and performance were evaluated immediately after initial training. For each group, following initial training but before refresher training, a learning effectiveness assessment was conducted at 12 and 24 months. CPR knowledge was assessed using a written test with 15 multiple-choice questions, and CPR performance was assessed through an examiner-rated skill test and objectively through manikin feedback. A generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze changes in CPR ability indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study recruited 1163 participants (mean age 41.82, SD 11.6 years; n=725, 62.3% female), with 332 (28.5%), 270 (23.2%), 258 (22.2%), and 303 (26.1%) participants in the Mixed6, Traditional6, Mixed12, and Blended6 groups, respectively. No significant between-group difference was observed in knowledge acquisition after initial training (P=.23). All groups met the criteria for high-quality CPR skills (ie, average compression depth: 5-6 cm; average compression rate: 100-120 beats/min; chest recoil rate: >80%); however, a higher proportion (98/303, 32.3%) of participants receiving blended training initially demonstrated high-quality CPR skills. At 12 and 24 months, CPR skills had declined in all the groups, but the decline was significantly higher in the Mixed12 group, whereas the differences were not significant between the other groups. This finding indicates that frequent retraining can maintain high-quality CPR skills and that blended refresher training is as effective as traditional refresher training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that 6-month refresher training sessions for CPR are more effective for maintaining high-quality CPR skills, and that as refreshers, self-learning e-modules are as effective as instructor-led sessions. Although the blended learning approach is cost and resource effective, factors such as participant demographics, training environment, and level of engagement must be considered to maximize the potential of this approach.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>IGOGO NCT05659108; https://www.cgmh-igogo.tw.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11091803/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Blended Versus Traditional Refresher Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Prospective Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Cheng-Yu Chien, Shang-Li Tsai, Chien-Hsiung Huang, Ming-Fang Wang, Chi-Chun Lin, Chen-Bin Chen, Li-Heng Tsai, Hsiao-Jung Tseng, Yan-Bo Huang, Chip-Jin Ng\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/52230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Generally, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills decline substantially over time. By combining web-based self-regulated learning with hands-on practice, blended training can be a time- and resource-efficient approach enabling individuals to acquire or refresh CPR skills at their convenience. However, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of blended CPR refresher training compared with that of the traditional method.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigated and compared the effectiveness of traditional and blended CPR training through 6-month and 12-month refresher sessions with CPR ability indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study recruited participants aged ≥18 years from the Automated External Defibrillator Donation Project. The participants were divided into 4 groups based on the format of the CPR training and refresher training received: (1) initial traditional training (a 30-minute instructor-led, hands-on session) and 6-month traditional refresher training (Traditional6 group), (2) initial traditional training and 6-month blended refresher training (an 18-minute e-learning module; Mixed6 group), (3) initial traditional training and 12-month blended refresher training (Mixed12 group), and (4) initial blended training and 6-month blended refresher training (Blended6 group). CPR knowledge and performance were evaluated immediately after initial training. For each group, following initial training but before refresher training, a learning effectiveness assessment was conducted at 12 and 24 months. CPR knowledge was assessed using a written test with 15 multiple-choice questions, and CPR performance was assessed through an examiner-rated skill test and objectively through manikin feedback. A generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze changes in CPR ability indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study recruited 1163 participants (mean age 41.82, SD 11.6 years; n=725, 62.3% female), with 332 (28.5%), 270 (23.2%), 258 (22.2%), and 303 (26.1%) participants in the Mixed6, Traditional6, Mixed12, and Blended6 groups, respectively. No significant between-group difference was observed in knowledge acquisition after initial training (P=.23). All groups met the criteria for high-quality CPR skills (ie, average compression depth: 5-6 cm; average compression rate: 100-120 beats/min; chest recoil rate: >80%); however, a higher proportion (98/303, 32.3%) of participants receiving blended training initially demonstrated high-quality CPR skills. At 12 and 24 months, CPR skills had declined in all the groups, but the decline was significantly higher in the Mixed12 group, whereas the differences were not significant between the other groups. This finding indicates that frequent retraining can maintain high-quality CPR skills and that blended refresher training is as effective as traditional refresher training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that 6-month refresher training sessions for CPR are more effective for maintaining high-quality CPR skills, and that as refreshers, self-learning e-modules are as effective as instructor-led sessions. Although the blended learning approach is cost and resource effective, factors such as participant demographics, training environment, and level of engagement must be considered to maximize the potential of this approach.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>IGOGO NCT05659108; https://www.cgmh-igogo.tw.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11091803/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/52230\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/52230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一般来说,心肺复苏(CPR)技能会随着时间的推移而大幅下降。通过将基于网络的自我调节学习与实践练习相结合,混合式培训可以成为一种节省时间和资源的方法,使个人能够在方便的时候获得或更新心肺复苏技能。然而,与传统方法相比,很少有研究对混合式心肺复苏术复习培训的效果进行评估:本研究通过 6 个月和 12 个月的心肺复苏术能力指标,调查并比较了传统心肺复苏术培训和混合式心肺复苏术培训的效果:本研究从自动体外除颤器捐赠项目中招募了年龄≥18 岁的参与者。根据所接受的心肺复苏培训和复习培训的形式,将参与者分为 4 组:(1)初始传统培训(30 分钟的教师指导实践课程)和 6 个月的传统复习培训(传统 6 组);(2)初始传统培训和 6 个月的混合复习培训(18 分钟的电子学习模块;混合 6 组);(3)初始传统培训和 12 个月的混合复习培训(混合 12 组);(4)初始混合培训和 6 个月的混合复习培训(混合 6 组)。初始培训结束后,立即对心肺复苏知识和表现进行评估。每组在初始培训后、复习培训前,分别在 12 个月和 24 个月时进行学习效果评估。心肺复苏术知识通过包含 15 道选择题的书面测试进行评估,心肺复苏术表现通过考官评分的技能测试和人体模型反馈进行客观评估。采用广义估计方程模型分析心肺复苏能力指标的变化:本研究共招募了 1163 名参与者(平均年龄 41.82 岁,标准差 11.6 岁;n=725,62.3% 为女性),其中混合 6 组、传统 6 组、混合 12 组和混合 6 组分别有 332 人(28.5%)、270 人(23.2%)、258 人(22.2%)和 303 人(26.1%)。在初始培训后的知识掌握情况方面,没有观察到明显的组间差异(P=0.23)。所有组别都达到了高质量心肺复苏技能的标准(即平均按压深度:5-6 厘米;平均按压频率:100-120 次/分钟;胸廓按压深度:5-6 厘米;平均按压频率:100-120 次/分钟):100-120 次/分;胸廓回缩率:>然而,在接受混合培训的参与者中,最初表现出高质量心肺复苏技能的比例更高(98/303,32.3%)。在 12 个月和 24 个月时,所有组别的心肺复苏技能都有所下降,但混合12 组的下降幅度明显更高,而其他组之间的差异并不显著。这一结果表明,频繁的复训可以保持高质量的心肺复苏技能,而且混合复训与传统复训一样有效:我们的研究结果表明,为期 6 个月的心肺复苏术进修培训课程能更有效地保持高质量的心肺复苏术技能,而且作为进修课程,自学电子模块与教师指导课程同样有效。虽然混合式学习方法具有成本和资源效益,但必须考虑参与者的人口统计、培训环境和参与程度等因素,才能最大限度地发挥这种方法的潜力:IGOGO NCT05659108; https://www.cgmh-igogo.tw.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of Blended Versus Traditional Refresher Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Prospective Observational Study.

Background: Generally, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills decline substantially over time. By combining web-based self-regulated learning with hands-on practice, blended training can be a time- and resource-efficient approach enabling individuals to acquire or refresh CPR skills at their convenience. However, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of blended CPR refresher training compared with that of the traditional method.

Objective: This study investigated and compared the effectiveness of traditional and blended CPR training through 6-month and 12-month refresher sessions with CPR ability indicators.

Methods: This study recruited participants aged ≥18 years from the Automated External Defibrillator Donation Project. The participants were divided into 4 groups based on the format of the CPR training and refresher training received: (1) initial traditional training (a 30-minute instructor-led, hands-on session) and 6-month traditional refresher training (Traditional6 group), (2) initial traditional training and 6-month blended refresher training (an 18-minute e-learning module; Mixed6 group), (3) initial traditional training and 12-month blended refresher training (Mixed12 group), and (4) initial blended training and 6-month blended refresher training (Blended6 group). CPR knowledge and performance were evaluated immediately after initial training. For each group, following initial training but before refresher training, a learning effectiveness assessment was conducted at 12 and 24 months. CPR knowledge was assessed using a written test with 15 multiple-choice questions, and CPR performance was assessed through an examiner-rated skill test and objectively through manikin feedback. A generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze changes in CPR ability indicators.

Results: This study recruited 1163 participants (mean age 41.82, SD 11.6 years; n=725, 62.3% female), with 332 (28.5%), 270 (23.2%), 258 (22.2%), and 303 (26.1%) participants in the Mixed6, Traditional6, Mixed12, and Blended6 groups, respectively. No significant between-group difference was observed in knowledge acquisition after initial training (P=.23). All groups met the criteria for high-quality CPR skills (ie, average compression depth: 5-6 cm; average compression rate: 100-120 beats/min; chest recoil rate: >80%); however, a higher proportion (98/303, 32.3%) of participants receiving blended training initially demonstrated high-quality CPR skills. At 12 and 24 months, CPR skills had declined in all the groups, but the decline was significantly higher in the Mixed12 group, whereas the differences were not significant between the other groups. This finding indicates that frequent retraining can maintain high-quality CPR skills and that blended refresher training is as effective as traditional refresher training.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that 6-month refresher training sessions for CPR are more effective for maintaining high-quality CPR skills, and that as refreshers, self-learning e-modules are as effective as instructor-led sessions. Although the blended learning approach is cost and resource effective, factors such as participant demographics, training environment, and level of engagement must be considered to maximize the potential of this approach.

Trial registration: IGOGO NCT05659108; https://www.cgmh-igogo.tw.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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