A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR): Behavioural Changes in the COVID-19 Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted public health systems and individuals' behaviour, with decreasing survival rates among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves OHCA outcomes, which may have been affected by COVID-19. We sought to understand the impacts of COVID-19 on bystanders' willingness to administer CPR in three Canadian provinces. Methods Participants ≥ 18 years of age were surveyed online about their current and recalled pre-pandemic attitudes toward CPR and perceived transmission risk. We compared mean willingness to perform various CPR actions before and during the pandemic using paired t-tests. Differences in willingness across three provinces were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. We also conducted Chi-square tests to assess changes in willingness to perform CPR on children and older adults. Results Five hundred thirty-five participants were surveyed from October 1 to November 15, 2021. The mean age was 42.7 years (SD 14.5), and 60.2% were female. Participants reported less willingness to perform chest compressions on strangers during the pandemic compared to their recollections before the pandemic (mean willingness 86.2% vs. 94.3% prior, p<0.001). With personal protective equipment (PPE) available, particularly masks, willingness recovered to 91.3% (p<0.001). Willingness was higher in Nova Scotia (NS) than in British Columbia (BC) or Ontario (ON). Reluctance to assist older adults increased from 6.6% to 12.0% (p=0.020). Conclusions This study highlights changes in CPR willingness during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the importance of PPE and offering insights into public health strategies pertaining to CPR during a pandemic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".