A. Mollo , S. Beck , A. Degel , R. Greif , J. Breckwoldt
{"title":"儿童拯救生命:谁应该对学龄儿童进行复苏培训?系统回顾","authors":"A. Mollo , S. Beck , A. Degel , R. Greif , 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":"{\"title\":\"Kids save lives: Who should train schoolchildren in resuscitation? A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"A. Mollo , S. Beck , A. Degel , R. Greif , 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}","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}
Kids save lives: Who should train schoolchildren in resuscitation? A systematic review
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.