Comparing the effect of self-instruction with that of traditional instruction in basic life support courses-a systematic review.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Application effect of Miller’s pyramid teaching method based on HeartCode BLS in basic life support training for nursing students (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xu, W., Cheng, F., Li, Z., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1863479
- 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