Blended learning for accredited life support courses - A systematic review.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness on educational and resource outcomes of blended compared to non-blended learning approaches for participants undertaking accredited life support courses.

METHODS

This review was conducted in adherence with PRISMA standards. We searched EMBASE.com (including all journals listed in Medline), CINAHL and Cochrane from 1 January 2000 to 6 August 2021. Randomised and non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools), and certainty of evidence evaluation (using GRADE) were all independently performed in duplicate. The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022274392).

RESULTS

From 2,420 studies, we included data from 23 studies covering fourteen basic life support (BLS) with 2,745 participants, eight advanced cardiac life support (ALS) with 33,579 participants, and one Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) with 92 participants. Blended learning is at least as effective as non-blended learning for participant satisfaction, knowledge, skills, and attitudes. There is potential for cost reduction and eventual net profit in using blended learning despite high set up costs. The certainty of evidence was very low due to a high risk of bias and inconsistency. Heterogeneity across studies precluded any meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Blended learning is at least as effective as non-blended learning for accredited BLS, ALS, and ATLS courses. Blended learning is associated with significant long term cost savings and thus provides a more efficient method of teaching. Further research is needed to investigate specific delivery methods and the effect of blended learning on other accredited life support courses.