TY - JOUR
T1 - Improving the cost-effectiveness of laypersons' paediatric basic life support skills training
T2 - A randomised non-inferiority study
AU - Hasselager, Asbjørn
AU - Bohnstedt, Cathrine
AU - Østergaard, Doris
AU - Sønderskov, Claus
AU - Bihrmann, Kristine
AU - Tolsgaard, Martin G
AU - Lauritsen, Torsten L B
N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/5
Y1 - 2019/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.032
DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.032
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 30836169
SN - 0300-9572
VL - 138
SP - 28
EP - 35
JO - Resuscitation
JF - Resuscitation
ER -