↓ Skip to main content

Danish first aid books compliance with the new evidence-based non-resuscitative first aid guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Danish first aid books compliance with the new evidence-based non-resuscitative first aid guidelines
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13049-018-0472-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theo Walther Jensen, Thea Palsgaard Møller, Søren Viereck, Jens Roland, Thomas Egesborg Pedersen, Freddy K. Lippert

Abstract

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) released new guidelines on resuscitation in 2015. For the first time, the guidelines included a separate chapter on first aid for laypersons. We analysed the current major Danish national first aid books to identify potential inconsistencies between the current books and the new evidence-based first aid guidelines. We identified first aid books from all the first aid courses offered by major Danish suppliers. Based on the new ERC first aid guidelines, we developed a checklist of 26 items within 16 different categories to assess the content; this checklist was adapted following the principle of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive questioning. To assess the agreement between four raters, Fleiss' kappa test was used. Items that did not reach an acceptable kappa score were excluded. We evaluated 10 first aid books used for first aid courses and published between 2009 and 2015. The content of the books complied with the new in 38% of the answers. In 12 of the 26 items, there was less than 50% consistency. These items include proximal pressure points and elevation of extremities for the control of bleeding, use of cervical collars, treatment for an open chest wound, burn dressing, dental avulsion, passive leg raising, administration of bronchodilators, adrenaline, and aspirin. Danish course material showed significant inconsistencies with the new evidence-based first aid guidelines. The new knowledge from the evidence-based guidelines should be incorporated into revised and updated first aid course material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Lecturer 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,478,649
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#821
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,275
of 443,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.