Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Disparities in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation ( CPR ) is associated with increased survival from cardiac arrest, yet bystander CPR rates are low in many communities. The overall prevalence of CPR training in the United States and associated individual‐level disparities are unknown. We sought to measure the national prevalence of CPR training and hypothesized that older age and lower socioeconomic status would be independently associated with a lower likelihood of CPR training. Methods and Results We administered a cross‐sectional telephone survey to a nationally representative adult sample. We assessed the demographics of individuals trained in CPR within 2 years (currently trained) and those who had been trained in CPR at some point in time (ever trained). The association of CPR training and demographic variables were tested using survey weighted logistic regression. Between September 2015 and November 2015, 9022 individuals completed the survey; 18% reported being currently trained in CPR , and 65% reported training at some point previously. For each year of increased age, the likelihood of being currently CPR trained or ever trained decreased (currently trained: odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97–0.99; P <0.01; ever trained: OR , 0.99; 95% CI , 0.98–0.99; P =0.04). Furthermore, there was a greater then 4‐fold difference in odds of being currently CPR trained from the 30–39 to 70–79 year old age groups (95% CI , 0.10–0.23). Factors associated with a lower likelihood of CPR training were lesser educational attainment and lower household income ( P <0.01 for each of these variables). Conclusions A minority of respondents reported current training in CPR . Older age, lesser education, and lower income were associated with reduced likelihood of CPR training. These findings illustrate important gaps in US CPR education and suggest the need to develop tailored CPR training efforts to address this variability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".