MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091165791 · doi:10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000709

Cost-effectiveness analysis of workplace-based distributed cardiopulmonary resuscitation training versus conventional annual basic life support training

2020· article· en· W3091165791 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersLaerdal Foundation for Acute MedicineRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationTraining (meteorology)Basic life supportAdvanced life supportLife Support CareNursingMedical educationMedical emergencyPsychologyLife supportMedicineResuscitationMEDLINEEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Although distributed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) practice has been shown to improve learning outcomes, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of this training strategy. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of workplace-based distributed CPR practice with real-time feedback when compared with conventional annual CPR training. Methods: We measured educational resource use, costs, and outcomes of both conventional training and distributed training groups in a prospective-randomised trial conducted with paediatric acute care providers over 12 months. Costs were calculated and reported from the perspective of the health institution. Incremental costs and effectiveness of distributed CPR training relative to conventional training were presented. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) if appropriate. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. Results: A total of 87 of 101 enrolled participants completed the training (46/53 in intervention and 41/48 in the control). Compared with conventional training, the distributed CPR training group had a higher proportion of participants achieving CPR excellence, defined as over 90% guideline compliant for chest compression depth, rate and recoil (control: 0.146 (6/41) vs intervention 0.543 (25/46), incremental effectiveness: +0.397) with decreased costs (control: $C266.50 vs intervention $C224.88 per trainee, incremental costs: -$C41.62). The sensitivity analysis showed that when the institution does not pay for the training time, distributed CPR training results in an ICER of $C147.05 per extra excellent CPR provider. Conclusion: Workplace-based distributed CPR training with real-time feedback resulted in improved CPR quality by paediatric healthcare providers and decreased training costs, when training time is paid by the institution. If the institution does not pay for training time, implementing distributed training resulted in better CPR quality and increased costs, compared with conventional training. These findings contribute further evidence to the decision-making processes as to whether institutions/programmes should financially adopt these training programmes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it