Improving individuals’ propensity to act in a medical emergency: A quasi-randomised trial to test the impact of a learning intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To build the evidence base for first aid education by testing the hypothesis that learners will be more confident and willing to act in an emergency if their first aid education has attempted to break down perceived barriers to helping. Design: Additional activities were appended to and delivered alongside a control curriculum consisting of the Canadian Red Cross’ Emergency First Aid training for adult learners. Both control and test learners completed questionnaires before, immediately after and at 6 months following their training. Setting: Four Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. Participants: A total of 199 adult participants elected to take part in the first aid training and were randomised into test and control groups. Methods: Following first aid training lasting 6.5–8 hours, we assessed learners’ self-rated confidence/self-efficacy, willingness to act and changes in pre-identified fears and attitudes. Results: Learners from both control and test courses showed a positive change in self-efficacy and willingness to act although there was no statistically significant difference between control and test groups. The test course had a statistically significantly higher percentage of learners who were more aware of the bystander effect post learning. There was significant heterogeneity in learner outcomes which varied by Canadian province. Conclusion: First aid education can increase the propensity of learners to act. Although the additional activities provided in this study did not make a statistically significant difference to confidence and willingness to act, they may increase awareness of helping behaviours. Heterogeneity between Canadian provinces may link to differing provincial laws which protect lay people who try to help in an emergency.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".