Factors affecting public access defibrillator placement decisions in the United Kingdom: A survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to understand current community PAD placement strategies and identify factors which influence PAD placement decision-making in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: Individuals, groups and organisations involved in PAD placement in the UK were invited to participate in an online survey collecting demographic information, facilitators and barriers to community PAD placement and information used to decide where a PAD is installed in their experiences. Survey responses were analysed through descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis. Results: There were 106 included responses. Distance from another PAD (66%) and availability of a power source (63%) were most frequently used when respondents are deciding where best to install a PAD and historical occurrence of cardiac arrest (29%) was used the least. Three main themes were identified influencing PAD placement: (i) the relationship between the community and PADs emphasising community engagement to create buy-in; (ii) practical barriers and facilitators to PAD placement including securing consent, powering the cabinet, accessibility, security, funding, and guardianship; and (iii) 'risk assessment' methods to estimate the need for PADs including areas of high footfall, population density and type, areas experiencing health inequalities, areas with delayed ambulance response and current PAD provision. Conclusion: Decision-makers want to install PADs in locations that maximise impact and benefit to the community, but this can be constrained by numerous social and infrastructural factors. The best location to install a PAD depends on local context; work is required to determine how to overcome barriers to optimal community PAD placement.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".