The effectiveness of using medical students for training high school students in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Abstract

Neuroeconomics has the potential to fundamentally change the way economics is done. This article identifies the ways in which this will occur, pitfalls of this approach, and areas where progress has already been made. The value of neuroeconomics studies for social policy lies in the quality, replicability, and relevance of the research produced. While most economists will not contribute to the neuroeconomics literature, we contend that most economists should be reading these studies.

Outcomes of medical students training schoolchildren of ages 13–18 in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review

“…There were nine studies in which 1401 high school participants, aged 13–17 years, were trained in CPR by medical students. 18 , 19 , 24 , 26 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 The interventions were consistent; in that all schoolchildren received direct instruction from the medical students, despite some variability in the medical students’ level of experience in teaching.…”

“…Where outcomes related to schoolchildren, eight studies measured confidence (Kirkpatrick Level 1b), knowledge (Kirkpatrick Level 2b) and skills (Kirkpatrick Level 2c) gained by the students post-training. 18 , 19 , 24 , 26 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 Two studies measured outcomes for medical students as CPR instructors, with the focus on professional practice skills (Kirkpatrick Level 2c) and CPR technical skills (Kirkpatrick Level 2c). 27 , 29 One study measured outcomes for both schoolchildren and medical students, namely confidence and theoretical knowledge in CPR (Kirkpatrick Levels 1b and 2b) for schoolchildren and confidence in professional practice outcomes (Kirkpatrick Level 1b) for medical students.…”

“…Theoretical CPR knowledge tests, using multiple-choice or true/false questions, was the most common outcome measure for schoolchildren. Practical CPR skills were measured using quantitative data for chest compression rate and depth with training mannequins, 18 , 19 , 33 however, one study used an observation-based psychomotor checklist. 34 Most outcome measures were self-developed, with only three validated outcome measures used (once each in three different studies): the Cardiff Test, a clinical teaching framework from the Stanford Faculty Development Program and an objective structured clinical examination.…”

“…Seven studies compared post-intervention (immediate or within 2-weeks) (t 1 ) theoretical knowledge (Kirkpatrick Level 2b) with pre-intervention (t 0 ), and all showed statistically significant improvement. 19 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 33 , 34 , 35 Only two studies explored the retention of theoretical knowledge through follow-up assessments at 6–9 months post-intervention (t 2 ). 24 , 35 The findings were contradictory – one study showed that the schoolchildren had good retention of information after 9-months, 24 but the other found that retention was poor at 6-months post-intervention.…”

“…Five studies examined CPR practical skills (Kirkpatrick Level 2c) post-training; 18 , 19 , 33 , 34 , 36 three measured chest compression rate and depth 18 , 19 , 33 and two reported on schoolchildren’s approach/sequence of CPR during a scenario-based practical assessment. 18 , 36 All produced positive results immediately post-intervention and one study found that these skills were retained at 8-weeks post-training, 18 but another study showed that they had faded significantly by 6-months.…”