Cited by 44Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationInnovations in Medical EducationSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare

Comparing the effect of self-instruction with that of traditional instruction in basic life support courses-a systematic review.

Hsieh, Ming-Ju, Bhanji, Farhan, Chiang, Wen-Chu, Yang, Chih-Wei, Chien, Kuo-Liong, Ma, Matthew Huei-Ming·2016·Resuscitation

Abstract

Aim The efficacy of learning basic life support (BLS) through self-instruction is not clearly understood. The aim of our review was to compare the effect of self-instruction with that of traditional instruction on learners taking BLS courses. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and SCI-EXPANDED databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) or randomized cluster-controlled trials published from January 1, 1966 to April 25, 2015 which compared self-instruction with traditional instruction in BLS courses. Characteristics, participants, design and outcomes of included studies were extracted. Results The search yielded 2119 unique articles, of which 19 RCTs and 3 randomized cluster-controlled trials were included. The learners were different across studies, including laypersons, parents and caretakers of children, university or high school students, medical, pharmacy and nursing students, and practicing nurses. Self-instructional material included DVD, videotapes, on-line learning or interactive computer programs accompanied with synchronous or asynchronous hands-on practice. There were no studies comparing clinical outcomes between the different instructional methods. In evaluating skill performance, there was variability among studies in the skill assessment tools utilized and time of assessment. Nevertheless, the most frequent conclusion of these studies was that self-instruction had similar performance comp…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.08.021

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Comparative evidence on technology-enhanced BLS instruction is inconsistent.

    “Comparative evidence, however, is inconsistent: self-directed learning has yielded skill performance comparable to traditional instruction (16); virtual reality has shown no clear superiority over conventional simulation, despite greater cognitive engagement (13); and blended learning integrating online and in-person components may deliver superior overall CPR quality (17).”

Authors
Hsieh, M.-J., Bhanji, F., Chiang, W.-C., Yang, C.-W., Chien, K.-L., & Ma, M. H.-M.
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan University (TW)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • National Taiwan University Hospital (TW)
Venue
Resuscitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
108
Pages
8-19
ISSN
0300-9572 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2515159232
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Resuscitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Heart Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Keywords
basic life support, self-education, traditional teaching methods, CPR training, practical exercises, skill performance, online learning, interactive computer program, lay rescuer training, medical students
MeSH terms
Educational Measurement, Health Education, Humans, Learning, Programmed Instructions as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review