Bystanders are less willing to resuscitate out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims during the COVID-19 pandemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic may influence the willingness of bystanders to engage in resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to determine if and how the pandemic has changed willingness to intervene, and the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE). We distributed a 12-item survey to the general public through social media channels from June 4 to 23, 2020. We used 100-point scales to inquire about participants’ willingness to perform interventions on “strangers or unfamiliar persons” and “family members or familiar persons”, and compared mean willingness during time periods prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic using paired t-tests. Survey participants (n = 1360) were from 26 countries; the median age was 38 years (IQR 24–50) and 45% were female. Compared to prior to the pandemic, there were significant decreases in willingness to check for breathing or a pulse (mean difference −10.7% [95%CI −11.8, −9.6] for stranger/unfamiliar persons, −1.2% [95%CI −1.6, −0.8] for family/familiar persons), perform chest compressions (−14.3% [95%CI −15.6, −13.0], −1.6% [95%CI −2.1, −1.1]), provide rescue breaths (−19.5% [95%CI −20.9, −18.1], −5.5% [95%CI −6.4, −4.6]), and apply an automated external defibrillator (−4.8% [95%CI −5.7, −4.0], −0.9% [95%CI −1.3, −0.5]) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Willingness to intervene increased significantly if PPE was available (+8.3% [95%CI 7.2, 9.5] for stranger/unfamiliar, and +1.4% [95%CI 0.8, 1.9] for family/familiar persons). Willingness to perform bystander resuscitation during the pandemic decreased, however this was ameliorated if simple PPE were available.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it