Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Basic Life Support (BLS) among the Students of Quest International University: A Cross-Sectional Study from Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction: Basic Life Support (BLS) is a fundamental component of emergency medical care for maintaining airway patency, supporting ventilation, and preserving circulation during respiratory or cardiac arrest. Poor survival rates are strongly associated with delays in recognition of symptoms, low-quality CPR and defibrillation, showing the urgency of early intervention at the community and healthcare-provider levels. The present study aimed to evaluate students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to Basic Life Support, to identify gaps to strengthen BLS education and training. Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted from January 2025 to May 2025. A structured questionnaire was distributed online via Google Forms, where 179 respondents participated. Results: Females had a higher proportion of fair knowledge than males. Ethnicity and religion showed significant associations with attitude level. Nationality and ethnicity were significantly associated with practice level, with Malaysian participants and certain ethnic groups demonstrating better practice patterns. Conclusion: The present study highlights important knowledge and practical application gaps in Basic Life Support (BLS), despite participants' overall positive attitude. The predominance of poor-to-fair knowledge levels and suboptimal practice patterns underscores a critical disconnect between awareness and competency. Keywords Cardiac failure, emergency, knowledge, respiratory failure, training,
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".