Fit-cardiopulmonary resuscitation approach in public mass cardiopulmonary resuscitation teaching: A randomized control trial

Article Figures & Data

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1
- Flow diagram of the intervention group versus the control group. CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, min: minutes
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 2
- Consort flow diagram of the study. CCM: conventional classroom method, CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 3
- Graph comparison of mean scores for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance, high-quality CPR and knowledge, between the Fit-CPR program (solid lines) and CCM (dashed lines). CCM: conventional classroom method

Table 1

- Demographic data of both fit-CPR and CCM programs.

Group	Fit-CPR (n = 61)	CCM (n = 68)	p-value
Age
17 years old	61 (100)	68 (100)	p>0.05
Gender
Male	19 (31.1)	22 (35.3)	p=0.709
Female	42 (68.9)	44 (64.7)
Level of physical activity
<1×/week	25 (41.0)	33 (48.5)	p=0.120
1×/week	24 (39.3)	23 (33.8)
2–3×/week	11 (18.0)	6 (8.8)
>3×/week	1 (1.6)	6 (8.8)
Number of CPR courses attended in 5 years
0	59 (96.7)	66 (97.1)	p=0.259
1	2 (3.3)	0 (0.0)
2	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
>2	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
Background medical illness
Yes	0 (0)	0 (0)	p>0.05
No	61 (100)	68 (100)
Actively perform CPR within 2 years
Yes	0 (0)	0 (0)	p>0.05
No	61 (100)	68 (100)

Values are presented as numbers and percentages (%). CCM: conventional classroom method, CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Table 2

- Comparison of mean scores for knowledge, performance, and high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Items evaluated	Fit-CPR n=61	CCM n=68	GLM within-subject effect (p-value) ^{^a}	GLM between subject effect (p-value) ^{^a}
Items evaluated	Fit-CPR n=61	CCM n=68	Mean (SD)	GLM between subject effect (p-value) ^{^a}
Knowledge
Pre-test	4.34 (1.40)	4.03 (1.40)	<0.05^*	0.002^*
Post-test	7.79 (1.31)	8.51 (1.03)
Retention	7.16 (1.33)	7.15 (1.65)
Performance
Pre-test	1.80 (1.41)	2.41 (1.72)	<0.05^*	0.261
Post-test	9.02 (0.98)	9.18 (1.17)
Retention	8.49 (1.21)	8.54 (1.73)
High-quality CPR
Pre-test	0.72 (1.10)	1.41 (1.34)	<0.05^*	0.014^*
Post-test	3.57 (0.67)	3.54 (0.78)
Retention	3.16 (0.90)	3.21 (0.86)

↵^a Comparison of trends between the 2 groups was analyzed using the general linear model (time and group interaction effect).
↵^* Statistically significant results are p<0.05. CCM: conventional classroom method, GLM: general linear model

Table 3

- Knowledge scores for the intervention and control groups.

Group	Fit-CPR (n=61)	CCM (n=68)	P-value
Group	Correct answer n (%) Mean±SD
Indication (Q1)
Pre-test	7 (11.5)	11 (16.2)	0.442
Post-test	39 (63.9)	24 (35.3)	0.001
Retention	22 (36.1)	14 (20.6)	0.050
CPR Steps (Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6)
Pre-test	2.03±0.93	1.99±0.99	0.779
Post-test	3.80±0.44)	3.85±0.36	0.481
Retention	3.61±0.53	3.51±0.68	0.396
Emergency number (Q4)
Pre-test	54 (88.5)	56 (82.4)	0.323
Post-test	61 (100.0)	68 (100.0)	1.000
Retention	59 (96.7)	64 (94.1)	0.483
Hand placement (Q7)
Pre-test	44 (72.1)	51 (75.0)	0.712
Post-test	56 (91.8)	62 (91.2)	0.899
Retention	49 (80.3)	59 (86.8)	0.323
Rate & depth (Q8, Q9)
Pre-test	0.57±0.76	0.28±0.54	0.012
Post-test	1.03±0.97	1.75±0.61	0.000
Retention	1.16±0.86	1.29±0.87	0.394
CPR termination (Q10)
Pre-test	1 (1.6)	2 (2.9)	0.624
Post-test	24 (39.3)	44 (64.7)	0.004
Retention	16 (26.2)	22 (32.4)	0.446