↓ Skip to main content

Peers versus professional training of basic life support in Syria: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Peers versus professional training of basic life support in Syria: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1241-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fatima Abbas, Bisher Sawaf, Ibrahem Hanafi, Mohammad Younis Hajeer, Mhd Ismael Zakaria, Wafaa Abbas, Fadi Alabdeh, Nazir Ibrahim

Abstract

Peer training has been identified as a useful tool for delivering undergraduate training in basic life support (BLS) which is fundamental as an initial response in cases of emergency. This study aimed to (1) Evaluate the efficacy of peer-led model in basic life support training among medical students in their first three years of study, compared to professional-led training and (2) To assess the efficacy of the course program and students' satisfaction of peer-led training. A randomized controlled trial with blinded assessors was conducted on 72 medical students from the pre-clinical years (1st to 3rd years in Syria) at Syrian Private University. Students were randomly assigned to peer-led or to professional-led training group for one-day-course of basic life support skills. Sixty-four students who underwent checklist based assessment using objective structured clinical examination design (OSCE) (practical assessment of BLS skills) and answered BLS knowledge checkpoint-questionnaire were included in the analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in delivering BLS skills to medical students in practical (P = 0.850) and BLS knowledge questionnaire outcomes (P = 0.900). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement from pre- to post-course assessment with significant statistical difference in both practical skills and theoretical knowledge (P-Value < 0.001). Students were satisfied with the peer model of training. Peer-led training of basic life support for medical students was beneficial and it provided a quality of education which was as effective as training conducted by professionals. This method is applicable and desirable especially in poor-resource countries and in crisis situation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Student > Master 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 45 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 16%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 52 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,980,413
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,646
of 3,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,688
of 328,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#75
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 328,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.