↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of laypersons’ paediatric basic life support and foreign body airway obstruction management skills: a validity study

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Assessment of laypersons’ paediatric basic life support and foreign body airway obstruction management skills: a validity study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13049-018-0544-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asbjørn Hasselager, Doris Østergaard, Tim Kristensen, Claus Sønderskov, Cathrine Bohnstedt, Torsten L. B. Lauritsen, Lars Konge, Martin G. Tolsgaard

Abstract

Standardised courses for laypeople in Paediatric Basic Life Support (PBLS) and Foreign Body Airway Obstruction Management (FBAOM) teach essential skills for the initiation of resuscitation by bystanders. Performance assessments are necessary to ensure that skills are acquired. We aimed to examine the validity of developed performance assessments and to determine credible pass/fail standards. Validity evidence was gathered in a standardised simulated setting by testing participants with three different levels of PBLS/FBAOM experience: untrained laypersons, trained laypersons, and lifeguards. Two blinded raters assessed participants' performance. The reliability of test scores was analysed using generalizability theory, scores were compared across the three groups, and pass/fail-standards were established. A total of 33 participants were included. More than two raters and two cases were necessary for PBLS to achieve a reliability coefficient above 0.80, which is considered the minimally acceptable level for high-stakes certification. For FBAOM, two tests or three raters were needed. Assessment scores differed across the three groups for PBLS skills, as well as for FBAOM skills (p < 0.001). Pass levels of 74% and 55% of the maximum score for PBLS and FBAOM, respectively, were identified as the levels that best discriminated between competent and non-competent laypersons. Laypersons' PBLS and FBAOM skills can be assessed in a reliable and valid way in a standardised simulated setting. However, multiple raters and scenario tests are needed to ensure sufficient reliability, which raises questions regarding the feasibility of performing certification tests for laypersons who participate in short paediatric resuscitation courses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Engineering 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,724,121
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#452
of 1,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,649
of 336,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#13
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 336,142 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.