| Literature DB >> 29914441 |
Fatima Abbas1, Bisher Sawaf2, Ibrahem Hanafi3, Mohammad Younis Hajeer4, Mhd Ismael Zakaria2, Wafaa Abbas3, Fadi Alabdeh5, Nazir Ibrahim6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer training has been identified as a useful tool for delivering undergraduate training in basic life support (BLS) which is fundamental as an initial response in cases of emergency. This study aimed to (1) Evaluate the efficacy of peer-led model in basic life support training among medical students in their first three years of study, compared to professional-led training and (2) To assess the efficacy of the course program and students' satisfaction of peer-led training.Entities:
Keywords: Basic life support; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Crisis; Disaster medicine; Medical training; Medical undergraduate students; Randomized controlled trial
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29914441 PMCID: PMC6006697 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-018-1241-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Fig. 1CONSORT diagram, recruitment and allocation
Fig. 2Basic life support course program of the study
Fig. 3Double check of the practical assessment
Course evaluation survey response: Positive response for each item
| Question | Professionals’ group (total = 30) | Peers’ group (total = 34) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provided instruction and help during my skills practice session? | 30 | 34 | – |
| Answered all of my questions before my skills test? | 27 | 32 | 0.659† |
| Was professional and courteous to the students? | 30 | 34 | – |
| The course learning objectives were clear? | 29 | 32 | 1.000 |
| The overall level of difficulty of the course was? a | 34 | 24 | 0.008 |
| The content was presented clearly? | 30 | 34 | – |
| The quality of videos and written materials was? b | 25 | 24 | 0.383 |
| The equipment was clean and in good working condition? | 30 | 33 | 1.000 |
| The course prepared me to successfully pass the skills session? | 30 | 34 | – |
| I am confident I can use the skills the course taught me? | 30 | 31 | 0.241 |
| I will respond in an emergency because of the skills I learned in this course. | 28 | 33 | 0.559 |
| I took this course to obtain professional education credit or continuing education credit? | 12 | 28 | 0.001 |
Total number = 64
*Significant Level was set at 5%
†Chi square tests were applied
aThe positive response (yes) was considered for the choice (appropriate)
bThe positive response (yes) was considered for the choice (excellent)
Basic Sample Characteristics
| Total number | Professional’ Training group | Peers’ Training Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Males | 31 | 15 | 16 | 1.0 |
| Females | 33 | 15 | 18 | 1.0 | |
| Study year | 1st year | 24 | 12 | 12 | 0.872 |
| 2nd year | 19 | 8 | 11 | ||
| 3rd year | 21 | 10 | 11 |
*Significant Level was set at 5%
†Chi square tests were applied
Results of the practical assessment and knowledge questionnaire mean score of trainees between the two groups
| Professionals’ group | Peers’ group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result |
| Result |
| |||
| Overall pass rates | 26 | 30 | 30 | 34 | 1.000† | |
| Live pass rates | 27 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 0.333† | |
| Retest overall pass rates | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 0.091† | |
| Retest live pass rates | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 0.245† | |
| Conflicted pass rates | 2 | 3 | 9 | 12 | 1.000† | |
| Questionnaire means | Pre-course | 37.6 | 30 | 39.26 | 34 | 0.080‡ |
| Post-course | 53.47 | 30 | 53.56 | 34 | 0.900‡ | |
*Significant Level was set at 5%
†Fisher’s exact test was applied
‡Two-sample T-test was applied
Course effectiveness in improving BLS knowledge and practical skills according to Students’ assessments pre and post course (Total Number = 64 in all tests)
| Pre-Course | Post-Course | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Questionnaire mean score | 38.484 | 53.516 | 15.031 | < 0.001† |
| Practical test pass | 0 | 56 | < 0.001‡ |
*Significant Level was set at 5%
†Two-sample T-test was applied
‡Chi square test was applied
Fig. 4Students’ results of the practical assessment in all its stages
Differences between males and females regarding post course assessment
| Males | Females | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| result | number | result | number | ||
| Live overall post-course | 28 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 0.347† |
| Final post-course | 27 | 31 | 29 | 33 | 1.000 |
*Significant Level was set at 5%
†Fisher’s exact tests were applied
Participants’ pre- and post-course assessments according to their study year
| First year | Second year | Third year | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Number | Result | Number | Result | Number | ||
| Questionnaire Pre-course | 37.75 | 24 | 39.316 | 19 | 38.571 | 21 | 0.414† |
| Questionnaire Post-course | 53.125 | 24 | 53.632 | 19 | 53.857 | 21 | 0.680† |
| Overall live Practical Post-course | 23 | 24 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 21 | 0.743‡ |
| Final practical post-course | 20 | 24 | 17 | 19 | 19 | 21 | 0.734‡ |
*Significant Level was set at 5%
† ANOVA test was applied
‡ Pearson Chi-square test was applied