Barriers and facilitators to CPR knowledge transfer in an older population most likely to witness cardiac arrest: a theory-informed interview approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training and performing CPR among people above the age of 55 years. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of independent-living individuals aged 55 years and older from urban and rural settings. We developed an interview guide based on the constructs of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which elicits salient attitudes, social influences and control beliefs potentially influencing CPR training and performance. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed until achieving data saturation. Two independent reviewers performed inductive analyses to identify emerging themes, and ranked them by way of consensus. RESULTS: Demographics for the 24 interviewees: mean age 71.4 years, women 58.3%, urban location 75.0%, single dwelling 58.3%, CPR training 79.2% and prior CPR on real victim 8.3%. Facilitators of CPR training included: (1) classes in a convenient location; (2) more advertisements; and (3) having a spouse. Barriers to taking CPR training included: (1) perception of physical limitations; (2) time commitment; and (3) cost. Facilitators of providing CPR included: (1) 9-1-1 CPR instructions; (2) reminders/pocket cards; and (3) frequent but brief updates. Barriers to providing CPR included: (1) physical limitations; (2) lack of confidence; and (3) ambivalence of duty to act in a large group. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key facilitators and barriers for CPR training and performance in a purposive sample of individuals aged 55 years and older.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".