Elgohary M, Palazzo F S, Breckwoldt J, Cheng A, Pellegrino J, Schnaubelt S, Greif R, Lockey A
Emergency Department, Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Trust, Halifax, UK.
University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Resusc Plus. 2022 May 10;10:100240. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100240. eCollection 2022 Jun.
To evaluate the effectiveness on educational and resource outcomes of blended compared to non-blended learning approaches for participants undertaking accredited life support courses.
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).
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.
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.
评估与非混合式学习方法相比，混合式学习方法对参加经认证的生命支持课程的参与者在教育和资源成果方面的有效性。
本综述按照PRISMA标准进行。我们检索了2000年1月1日至2021年8月6日期间的EMBASE.com（包括Medline列出的所有期刊）、CINAHL和Cochrane。随机和非随机研究均符合纳入标准。研究筛选、数据提取、偏倚风险评估（使用RoB2和ROBINS-I工具）以及证据确定性评估（使用GRADE）均由两人独立重复进行。该系统评价已在PROSPERO（CRD42022274392）注册。
从2420项研究中，我们纳入了23项研究的数据，其中涵盖14项基础生命支持（BLS）研究，涉及2745名参与者；8项高级心脏生命支持（ALS）研究，涉及33579名参与者；以及1项高级创伤生命支持（ATLS）研究，涉及92名参与者。在参与者满意度、知识、技能和态度方面，混合式学习至少与非混合式学习一样有效。尽管前期设置成本较高，但使用混合式学习仍有降低成本并最终实现净利润的潜力。由于偏倚风险高和不一致性，证据确定性非常低。研究之间的异质性排除了任何荟萃分析。
对于经认证的BLS、ALS和ATLS课程，混合式学习至少与非混合式学习一样有效。混合式学习可带来显著的长期成本节约，因此提供了一种更高效的教学方法。需要进一步研究以调查具体的授课方式以及混合式学习对其他经认证的生命支持课程的影响。
