Asbjørn Hasselager1, Cathrine Bohnstedt2, Doris Østergaard3, Claus Sønderskov4, Kristine Bihrmann5, Martin G Tolsgaard3, Torsten L B Lauritsen6. 1. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), RegionH, Denmark. Electronic address: ahasselager@dadlnet.dk. 2. Department of Pediatrics, North Zealand Hospital, Denmark. 3. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), RegionH, Denmark. 4. RedMitBarn - Firstaiders, Frederiksberg, Denmark. 5. National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Anaesthesia, The Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
AIM: To compare dyad (training in pairs without an instructor) with resource-intensive instructor-led training for laypersons' paediatric resuscitation skills in a non-inferiority trial and examine cost-effectiveness of the training methods. METHODS: In this randomised parallel group non-inferiority trial, 155 dyad and 175 instructor-led laypersons were trained in Basic Life Support and Foreign Body Airway Obstruction Management. Dyads were given instructional videos, hands-on exercises and provided feedback to their partner for 50 min. Instructor-led laypersons trained in groups of six for two hours. Learning were assessed in scenarios immediately after training and, subsequently, at 14 days, 1, and 3 months. Pass rates, cost-effectiveness of producing a competent layperson (passing both tests), and non-inferiority were analysed. RESULTS:Sixty-eight (45.6%) dyad and 130 (74.3%) instructor-led laypersons passed the basic life support test (p < 0.001). For Foreign Body Airway Obstruction Management 77 (54.2%) dyad and 130 (79.3%) for instructor-led laypersons passed (p < 0.001). Skills decreased over three months for both groups. Forty-two (30.4%) dyad and ninety-eight (59.8%) for instructor-led laypersons were competent after training (p < 0.001). The lower effectiveness of dyad training had reduced costs (p < 0.001). For each 10,000 USD allocated to training, dyad training would result in 71 vs. 65 competent laypersons for instructor-led training. Non-inferiority of dyad training could not be established. CONCLUSION: Instructor-led training was the most effective but also the most expensive training method, making it less cost-effective than dyad training. When the aim is to train for quantity rather than quality, dyad training would be the preferred choice of training method.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare dyad (training in pairs without an instructor) with resource-intensive instructor-led training for laypersons' paediatric resuscitation skills in a non-inferiority trial and examine cost-effectiveness of the training methods. METHODS: In this randomised parallel group non-inferiority trial, 155 dyad and 175 instructor-led laypersons were trained in Basic Life Support and Foreign Body Airway Obstruction Management. Dyads were given instructional videos, hands-on exercises and provided feedback to their partner for 50 min. Instructor-led laypersons trained in groups of six for two hours. Learning were assessed in scenarios immediately after training and, subsequently, at 14 days, 1, and 3 months. Pass rates, cost-effectiveness of producing a competent layperson (passing both tests), and non-inferiority were analysed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight (45.6%) dyad and 130 (74.3%) instructor-led laypersons passed the basic life support test (p < 0.001). For Foreign Body Airway Obstruction Management 77 (54.2%) dyad and 130 (79.3%) for instructor-led laypersons passed (p < 0.001). Skills decreased over three months for both groups. Forty-two (30.4%) dyad and ninety-eight (59.8%) for instructor-led laypersons were competent after training (p < 0.001). The lower effectiveness of dyad training had reduced costs (p < 0.001). For each 10,000 USD allocated to training, dyad training would result in 71 vs. 65 competent laypersons for instructor-led training. Non-inferiority of dyad training could not be established. CONCLUSION: Instructor-led training was the most effective but also the most expensive training method, making it less cost-effective than dyad training. When the aim is to train for quantity rather than quality, dyad training would be the preferred choice of training method.
Authors: Myra H Wyckoff; Eunice M Singletary; Jasmeet Soar; Theresa M Olasveengen; Robert Greif; Helen G Liley; David Zideman; Farhan Bhanji; Lars W Andersen; Suzanne R Avis; Khalid Aziz; Jason C Bendall; David C Berry; Vere Borra; Bernd W Böttiger; Richard Bradley; Janet E Bray; Jan Breckwoldt; Jestin N Carlson; Pascal Cassan; Maaret Castrén; Wei-Tien Chang; Nathan P Charlton; Adam Cheng; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Daniela T Costa-Nobre; Keith Couper; Katie N Dainty; Peter G Davis; Maria Fernanda de Almeida; Allan R de Caen; Edison F de Paiva; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Matthew J Douma; Ian R Drennan; Jonathan P Duff; Kathryn J Eastwood; Walid El-Naggar; Jonathan L Epstein; Raffo Escalante; Jorge G Fabres; Joe Fawke; Judith C Finn; Elizabeth E Foglia; Fredrik Folke; Karoline Freeman; Elaine Gilfoyle; Craig A Goolsby; Amy Grove; Ruth Guinsburg; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Mary Fran Hazinski; George S Heriot; Karen G Hirsch; Mathias J Holmberg; Shigeharu Hosono; Ming-Ju Hsieh; Kevin K C Hung; Cindy H Hsu; Takanari Ikeyama; Tetsuya Isayama; Vishal S Kapadia; Mandira Daripa Kawakami; Han-Suk Kim; David A Kloeck; Peter J Kudenchuk; Anthony T Lagina; Kasper G Lauridsen; Eric J Lavonas; Andrew S Lockey; Carolina Malta Hansen; David Markenson; Tasuku Matsuyama; Christopher J D McKinlay; Amin Mehrabian; Raina M Merchant; Daniel Meyran; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Kevin J Nation; Michael Nemeth; Robert W Neumar; Tonia Nicholson; Susan Niermeyer; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Chika Nishiyama; Brian J O'Neil; Aaron M Orkin; Osokogu Osemeke; Michael J Parr; Catherine Patocka; Jeffrey L Pellegrino; Gavin D Perkins; Jeffrey M Perlman; Yacov Rabi; Joshua C Reynolds; Giuseppe Ristagno; Charles C Roehr; Tetsuya Sakamoto; Claudio Sandroni; Taylor Sawyer; Georg M Schmölzer; Sebastian Schnaubelt; Federico Semeraro; Markus B Skrifvars; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Roger F Soll; Takahiro Sugiura; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Daniele Trevisanuto; Christian Vaillancourt; Tzong-Luen Wang; Gary M Weiner; Michelle Welsford; Jane Wigginton; Jonathan P Wyllie; Joyce Yeung; Jerry P Nolan; Katherine M Berg Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 5.262