Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, bystander CPR rates are low; one effective way to increase these rates is to train schoolchildren; however, the most effective way to train them is currently unknown. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, evaluated whether CPR training for schoolchildren, using innovative teaching modalities (nonpractical, self, or peer-training) versus standard instructor-led training, resulted in higher quality CPR, self-confidence and short-term (≤3 months post-training) or long-term (>3 months post-training) retention of CPR skills. RESULTS: From 9793 citations, 96 studies published between 1975 and 2022 (44 RCTs and 52 before/after studies) were included. There were 43,754 students, average age of 11.5 ± 0.9 (range 5.9-17.6) and 49.2% male. Only 13 RCTs compared practical vs. nonpractical training (n = 5), self- vs. instructor-led training (n = 7) or peer- vs. instructor-led training (n = 5). The observed statistically significant differences in mean depth and rate of compressions between children with hands-on practical training and those without were not clinically relevant. Regardless of training modality, compression depth was consistently suboptimal. No differences were observed in CPR skills immediately or ≤ 3 months post-training, between children who were self- or peer-trained vs. instructor-led. Due to lack of data, we were unable to evaluate the impact of these novel training modalities on student self-confidence. CONCLUSION: Although innovative training modalities are equally effective to instructor-led training when teaching schoolchildren CPR, compression depth was frequently suboptimal. Recommendations on standardized training and evaluation methods are necessary to understand the best ways to train children.