A survey of attitudes and factors associated with successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) knowledge transfer in an older population most likely to witness cardiac arrest: design and methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overall survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rarely exceed 5%. While bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can increase survival for cardiac arrest victims by up to four times, bystander CPR rates remain low in Canada (15%). Most cardiac arrest victims are men in their sixties, they usually collapse in their own home (85%) and the event is witnessed 50% of the time. These statistics would appear to support a strategy of targeted CPR training for an older population that is most likely to witness a cardiac arrest event. However, interest in CPR training appears to decrease with advancing age. Behaviour surrounding CPR training and performance has never been studied using well validated behavioural theories. METHODS/DESIGN: The overall goal of this study is to conduct a survey to better understand the behavioural factors influencing CPR training and performance in men and women 55 years of age and older. The study will proceed in three phases. In phase one, semi-structured qualitative interviews will be conducted and recorded to identify common categories and themes regarding seeking CPR training and providing CPR to a cardiac arrest victim. The themes identified in the first phase will be used in phase two to develop, pilot-test, and refine a survey instrument based upon the Theory of Planned Behaviour. In the third phase of the project, the final survey will be administered to a sample of the study population over the telephone. Analyses will include measures of sampling bias, reliability of the measures, construct validity, as well as multiple regression analyses to identify constructs and beliefs most salient to seniors' decisions about whether to attend CPR classes or perform CPR on a cardiac arrest victim. DISCUSSION: The results of this survey will provide valuable insight into factors influencing the interest in CPR training and performance among a targeted group of individuals most susceptible to witnessing a victim in cardiac arrest. The findings can then be applied to the design of trials of various interventions designed to promote attendance at CPR classes and improve CPR performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00665288.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".