Jenko Matej, Frangez Maja, Manohin Aleksander
Katedra za anesteziologijo in reanimatologijo, Zaloska 7/I, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Croat Med J. 2012 Oct;53(5):486-95. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.486.
To compare the 2-stage and 4-stage basic life support teaching technique. The second aim was to test if students' self-evaluated knowledge was in accordance with their actual knowledge.
A total of 126 first-year students of the Faculty of Medicine in Ljubljana were involved in this parallel study conducted in the academic year 2009/2010. They were divided into ten groups. Five groups were taught the 2-stage model and five the 4-stage model. The students were tested in a scenario immediately after the course. Questionnaires were filled in before and after the course. We assessed the absolute values of the chest compression variables and the proportions of students whose performance was evaluated as correct according to our criteria. The results were analyzed with independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney-U test. Proportions were compared with χ(2) test. The correlation was calculated with the Pearson coefficient.
There was no difference between the 2-stage (2S) and the 4-stage approach (4S) in the compression rate (126±13 min-1 vs 124±16 min -1, P=0.180, independent samples t test), compression depth (43±7 mm vs 44±8 mm, P=0.368, independent samples t test), and the number of compressions with correct hand placement (79±32% vs 78±12, P=0.765, Mann-Whitney U-test). However, students from the 4-stage group had a significantly higher average number of compressions per minute (70±13 min -1 2S, 78±12 min-1 4S, P=0.02, independent samples t test). The percentage of students with all the variables correct was the same (13% 2S, 15% 4S, P=0.741, χ2 test). There was no correlation between the students' actual and self-evaluated knowledge (P=0.158, Pearson coefficient=0.127).
The 4-stage teaching technique does not significantly improve the quality of chest compressions. The students' self-evaluation of their performance after the course was too high.
比较两阶段和四阶段基础生命支持教学技术。第二个目的是检验学生自我评估的知识是否与他们的实际知识相符。
卢布尔雅那医学院的126名一年级学生参与了这项在2009/2010学年进行的平行研究。他们被分成十组。五组学习两阶段模型，五组学习四阶段模型。课程结束后立即在模拟场景中对学生进行测试。课程前后填写问卷。我们评估了胸外按压变量的绝对值以及根据我们的标准表现被评估为正确的学生比例。结果用独立样本t检验或曼-惠特尼U检验进行分析。比例用χ²检验进行比较。相关性用皮尔逊系数计算。
两阶段（2S）和四阶段方法（4S）在按压频率（126±13次/分钟对124±16次/分钟，P = 0.180，独立样本t检验）、按压深度（43±7毫米对44±8毫米，P = 0.368，独立样本t检验）以及手部放置正确的按压次数（79±32%对78±12，P = 0.765，曼-惠特尼U检验）方面没有差异。然而，四阶段组的学生每分钟平均按压次数显著更高（2S组为70±13次/分钟，4S组为78±12次/分钟，P = 0.02，独立样本t检验）。所有变量都正确的学生百分比相同（2S组为13%，4S组为15%，P = 0.741，χ²检验）。学生的实际知识与自我评估的知识之间没有相关性（P = 0.158，皮尔逊系数 = 0.127）。
四阶段教学技术并不能显著提高胸外按压的质量。课程结束后学生对自己表现的自我评估过高。
