Cargando…

Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Despite the proven effectiveness of rapid initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by bystanders, fewer than half of the victims actually receive bystander CPR. We aimed to review the evidence of the barriers and facilitato...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matsuyama, Tasuku, Scapigliati, Andrea, Pellis, Tommaso, Greif, Robert, Iwami, Taku
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8244432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100043
_version_ 1783715932599746560
author Matsuyama, Tasuku
Scapigliati, Andrea
Pellis, Tommaso
Greif, Robert
Iwami, Taku
author_facet Matsuyama, Tasuku
Scapigliati, Andrea
Pellis, Tommaso
Greif, Robert
Iwami, Taku
author_sort Matsuyama, Tasuku
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite the proven effectiveness of rapid initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by bystanders, fewer than half of the victims actually receive bystander CPR. We aimed to review the evidence of the barriers and facilitators for bystanders to perform CPR. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. This review included studies assessing barriers or facilitators for the lay rescuers to perform CPR in actual emergency settings and excluded studies that overlapped with other ILCOR systematic reviews/scoping reviews (e.g. dispatcher instructed CPR etc). The key findings were classified into three kinds of factors: personal factors; CPR knowledge; and procedural issues. RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible studies. Of these studies addressing the reduced willingness to respond to cardiac arrest, 14 related to “personal factors”, 3 to “CPR knowledge”, and 2 to “procedural issues”. On the other hand, we identified 5 articles assessing factors increasing bystanders’ willingness to perform CPR. However, we observed significant heterogeneity among study populations, methodologies, factors definitions, outcome measures utilized and outcomes reported. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a number of factors were present in actual settings which either inhibit or facilitate lay rescuers’ performance of CPR. Interventional strategies to improve CPR performance of lay rescuers in the actual settings should be established, taking these factors into consideration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8244432
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82444322021-07-02 Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review Matsuyama, Tasuku Scapigliati, Andrea Pellis, Tommaso Greif, Robert Iwami, Taku Resusc Plus Review BACKGROUND: Despite the proven effectiveness of rapid initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by bystanders, fewer than half of the victims actually receive bystander CPR. We aimed to review the evidence of the barriers and facilitators for bystanders to perform CPR. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. This review included studies assessing barriers or facilitators for the lay rescuers to perform CPR in actual emergency settings and excluded studies that overlapped with other ILCOR systematic reviews/scoping reviews (e.g. dispatcher instructed CPR etc). The key findings were classified into three kinds of factors: personal factors; CPR knowledge; and procedural issues. RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible studies. Of these studies addressing the reduced willingness to respond to cardiac arrest, 14 related to “personal factors”, 3 to “CPR knowledge”, and 2 to “procedural issues”. On the other hand, we identified 5 articles assessing factors increasing bystanders’ willingness to perform CPR. However, we observed significant heterogeneity among study populations, methodologies, factors definitions, outcome measures utilized and outcomes reported. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a number of factors were present in actual settings which either inhibit or facilitate lay rescuers’ performance of CPR. Interventional strategies to improve CPR performance of lay rescuers in the actual settings should be established, taking these factors into consideration. Elsevier 2020-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8244432/ /pubmed/34223318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100043 Text en © 2020 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Matsuyama, Tasuku
Scapigliati, Andrea
Pellis, Tommaso
Greif, Robert
Iwami, Taku
Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review
title Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review
title_full Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review
title_fullStr Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review
title_short Willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review
title_sort willingness to perform bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a scoping review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8244432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100043
work_keys_str_mv AT matsuyamatasuku willingnesstoperformbystandercardiopulmonaryresuscitationascopingreview
AT scapigliatiandrea willingnesstoperformbystandercardiopulmonaryresuscitationascopingreview
AT pellistommaso willingnesstoperformbystandercardiopulmonaryresuscitationascopingreview
AT greifrobert willingnesstoperformbystandercardiopulmonaryresuscitationascopingreview
AT iwamitaku willingnesstoperformbystandercardiopulmonaryresuscitationascopingreview