Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important determinant of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), yet rates of bystander CPR are highly variable. In an effort to promote bystander CPR, the procedure has been streamlined, and ultrashort teaching modalities have been introduced. CPR has been increasingly reconceptualized as simple, safe, and easy to perform; however, current methods of CPR instruction may not adequately prepare lay rescuers for the various logistical, conceptual, and emotional challenges of resuscitating a victim of cardiac arrest. METHODS AND RESULTS: We adopted a constructivist grounded theory methodology to qualitatively explore bystander CPR and invited lay rescuers who had recently (ie, within 1 week) intervened in an OHCA to participate in semistructured interviews and focus groups. We used constant comparative analysis until theoretical saturation to derive a midrange explanatory theory of bystander CPR. We constructed a 3-stage theoretical model describing a common experiential process for lay rescuer intervention in OHCA: Being called to act is disturbing, causing panic, shock, and disbelief that must ultimately be overcome. Taking action to save the victim is complicated by several misconceptions about cardiac arrest, where victims are mistakenly believed to be choking, and agonal respirations are misinterpreted to mean the victim is alive. Making sense of the experience is challenging, at least in the short term, where lay rescuers have to contend with self-doubt, unanswered questions, and uncomfortable emotional reactions to a traumatic event. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that current CPR training programs may not adequately prepare lay rescuers for the reality of an OHCA and identifies several key knowledge gaps that should be addressed. The long-term psychological consequences of bystander intervention in OHCA remain poorly understood and warrant further study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.030 |
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".