Comparison of blended e-learning and face-to-face-only education for resuscitation training in German schools - A cluster randomized-controlled prospective study.
Resuscitation Plus · 2024-09-13 · Randomised trial
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the key for surviving cardiac arrest. Recent recommendations propose that CPR can - and should -be taught to schoolchildren. This e-learning-based study analyzes whether face-to-face CPR training can be partly substituted with e-learning by measuring CPR knowledge and self-efficacy in trainees. METHODS: In this cluster randomized-controlled prospective, students attending grades 5 to 7 of a German secondary school volunteered to participate and were randomly assigned to one of two groups with different methods for CPR training each: a traditional instructor-led group (control) where students received face-to-face teaching by a BLS instructor (45 min), and an e-learning group (intervention) where schoolchildren were able to accomplish their theoretical CPR training using an e-learning module (15 min). CPR knowledge and self-efficacy were measured and compared before (t0) and after (t1) the training using questionnaires. Face-to-face CPR training (45 min) on manikins proceeded in both groups hereafter. The formal hypothesis was that e-learning would result in better CPR knowledge. RESULTS: Overall, 375 students participated; 33 of which had to be excluded. 342 participants were included in statistical analysis (instructor-led group n = 109; e-learning group n = 233). The study was terminated early due to the Covid19 pandemic, and did not reach the required number of participants. Lacking statistical power, an analysis of the existing datasets failed to show superiority of e-learning vs. conventional training for CPR knowledge (p = 0.306). Both groups improved CPR knowledge (p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (p < 0.001) after CPR training and showed an equal, high level of satisfaction with their perceived training method (face-to-face: 4.1[4.0-4.2] vs. e-learning: 4.0[3.9-4.1]; p = 0.153; maximum 5 points). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate superiority for e-learning but was terminated early and hence underpowered. Further research is necessary to prove the efficiency of e-learning tools for CPR.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Related articles
- App-based learning as an alternative for instructors in teaching basic life support to school children: a randomized control trial. (Acta Clin Belg, 2019)
- Learning cardiopulmonary resuscitation theory with face-to-face versus audiovisual instruction for secondary school students: a randomized controlled trial. (Emergencias, 2018)
- Teaching basic life support: a prospective randomized study on low-cost training strategies in secondary schools. (Eur J Emerg Med, 2014)
- Viewing a brief chest-compression-only CPR video improves bystander CPR performance and responsiveness in high school students: A cluster randomized trial. (Resuscitation, 2016)
- Kids save lives: Who should train schoolchildren in resuscitation? A systematic review. (Resusc Plus, 2024)
- Comparison of three instructional methods for teaching cardiopulmonary resuscitation and use of an automatic external defibrillator to high school students. (Resuscitation, 2006)