Comparison of blended e-learning and face-to-face-only education for resuscitation training in German schools – A cluster randomized-controlled prospective study

• Published in: Resuscitation plus Vol. 20; p. 100767
• Main Authors: Wetsch, Wolfgang A., Link, Nikolas, Rahe-Meyer, Niels, Dumcke, Rico, Stock, Jan M., Böttiger, Bernd W., Wingen, Sabine
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.12.2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: Blended learning; KIDS SAVE LIVES; Schoolchildren; Simulation and Education; KIDS SAVE LIVES; Blended learning; Schoolchildren
• ISSN: 2666-5204; 2666-5204
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100767

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. 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. 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). 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.