Comparing the effects of blended learning and traditional instruction on basic life support for laypersons: A randomized controlled trial

Ying-Chih Ko; Hao-Yang Lin; Wen-Chu Chiang; Chih-Wei Yang; Ming-Ju Hsieh; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma

doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2023.10.017

Comparing the effects of blended learning and traditional instruction on basic life support for laypersons: A randomized controlled trial

J Formos Med Assoc. 2023 Nov 22:S0929-6646(23)00435-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2023.10.017. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Ying-Chih Ko¹, Hao-Yang Lin², Wen-Chu Chiang³, Chih-Wei Yang⁴, Ming-Ju Hsieh⁵, Matthew Huei-Ming Ma³

Affiliations

¹ Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, National Taiwan University Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
² Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
³ Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital Yun-Lin Branch, Yun-Lin County, Taiwan.
⁴ Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Medical Education, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
⁵ Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: erdrmjhsieh@gmail.com.

PMID: 37996323
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2023.10.017

Abstract

Background/purpose: Blended learning offers the advantages of both instructor-led and self-instruction methods in basic life support (BLS). Our study aims to compare the effects of blended learning with those of traditional instructor-led methods on the performance of laypersons taking BLS courses.

Methods: A total of 108 participants were randomly assigned to three groups: traditional instruction (group A, n = 36), blended learning with two rounds of practice (group B, n = 36), and blended learning with three rounds of practice (group C, n = 36). Group A received a 90-min lecture and a 30-min hands-on practice session using a manikin and a metronome. Participants in groups B and C received 18-min standardized online video lessons and performed hands-on practice twice and thrice, respectively. The primary outcome was chest compression at a correct speed (100-120 compressions per min) after the training course. Secondary outcomes included knowledge test scores, attitudes and confidence, and individual skill performance after training.

Results: Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Blended learning with practicing thrice resulted in the highest compressions at a correct speed (group A vs. B vs. C, 68.09 vs 80.03 vs 89.42, p = 0.015) and the shortest average hands-off time (group A vs. B vs. C, 1.12 vs 0.86 vs 0.17 s, p = 0.015). Both blended groups performed better in confirming environmental safety (p < 0.001). No differences in scores of the knowledge test, attitude, or confidence were noted among the three groups.

Conclusion: Blended learning with three rounds of hands-on practice may be considered an alternative teaching method.

Keywords: Basic life support; Blended learning; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Education.