Comparing the effects of blended learning and traditional instruction on basic life support for laypersons: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background/purposeBlended learning offers the advantages of both instructor-led and self-instruction methods in basic life support (BLS). Our study aims to compare the effects of blended learning with those of traditional instructor-led methods on the performance of laypersons taking BLS courses. MethodsA total of 108 participants were randomly assigned to three groups: traditional instruction (group A, n = 36), blended learning with two rounds of practice (group B, n = 36), and blended learning with three rounds of practice (group C, n = 36). Group A received a 90-min lecture and a 30-min hands-on practice session using a manikin and a metronome. Participants in groups B and C received 18-min standardized online video lessons and performed hands-on practice twice and thrice, respectively. The primary outcome was chest compression at a correct speed (100–120 compressions per min) after the training course. Secondary outcomes included knowledge test scores, attitudes and confidence, and individual skill performance after training. ResultsPatient characteristics were similar between the groups. Blended learning with practicing thrice resulted in the highest compressions at a correct speed (group A vs. B vs. C, 68.09 vs 80.03 vs 89.42, p = 0.015) and the shortest average hands-off time (group A vs. B vs. C, 1.12 vs 0.86 vs 0.17 s, p = 0.015). Both blended groups performed better in confirming environmental safety (p < 0.001). No differences in scores of the knowledge test, attitude, or confidence were noted among the three groups. ConclusionBlended learning with three rounds of hands-on practice may be considered an alternative teaching method.