Disparities in layperson resuscitation education: A scoping review

Ying-Chih Ko; Ming-Ju Hsieh; Sebastian Schnaubelt; Tasuku Matsuyama; Adam Cheng; Robert Greif

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2023.07.033

Disparities in layperson resuscitation education: A scoping review

Am J Emerg Med. 2023 Oct:72:137-146. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.07.033. Epub 2023 Jul 25.

Authors

Ying-Chih Ko¹, Ming-Ju Hsieh², Sebastian Schnaubelt³, Tasuku Matsuyama⁴, Adam Cheng⁵, Robert Greif⁶

Affiliations

¹ Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, National Taiwan University Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
² Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: erdrmjhsieh@gmail.com.
³ Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
⁴ Department of Emergency Medicine, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
⁵ Departments of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
⁶ University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; and School of Medicine, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

PMID: 37531710
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.07.033

Abstract

Background: The aim of this scoping review was to identify factors that would enable or hinder the opportunity for laypersons to undertake resuscitation education.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify studies published from January 1, 1966 to December 31, 2022 including factors that could influence laypersons to undertake resuscitation education. Data regarding participant characteristics, interventions, and design and outcomes of included studies were extracted.

Results: Of the initially identified 6627 studies, 23 studies (20 cross-sectional and 3 cohort studies) were finally included. Among them, a wide variety of enablers and barriers were identified. High heterogeneity among studies was observed. We categorized factors into three themes: personal factors (age, sex, race, family status, language, prior experience of resuscitation, and immigration status), socioeconomic and educational factors (income, societal status, occupation and legislation, and educational attainment), and geographic factors (birthplace and habitancy). Several barriers were identified that affect laypersons from participating in resuscitation training, such as personal factors like advanced age, lower socioeconomic and educational status, as well as being part of marginalized groups due to race or language barriers. On the other hand, several enablers identified in the study included prior experiences of witnessing someone collapsing, awareness of automated external defibrillators in public locations, certain occupations, or legal requirements for training.

Conclusions: Various barriers and enablers were found to influence laypersons to participate in resuscitation training. To enhance layperson response to cardiac arrest, targeted initiatives that aim to eliminate barriers need to be initiated, and further research is required to explore factors relating to populations with special needs.

Keywords: Barrier; Enabler; Resuscitation education.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation* / education
Cross-Sectional Studies
Defibrillators
Educational Status
Humans
Income