• Stijn Van de Velde, Ann Roex, Karoline Vangronsveld, Lidewij Niezink, Koen Van Praet, Annemie Heselmans, Peter Donceel, Philippe Vandekerckhove, Dirk Ramaekers, and Bert Aertgeerts.
• Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium. stijn.vandevelde@med.kuleuven.be
• Emerg Med J. 2013 Apr 1;30(4):292-7.

BackgroundThere is limited evidence indicating that laypersons trained in first aid provide better help, but do not help more often than untrained laypersons. This study investigated the effect of conventional first aid training versus conventional training plus supplementary training aimed at decreasing barriers to helping.MethodsThe authors conducted a randomised controlled trial. After 24 h of conventional first aid training, the participants either attended an experimental lesson to reduce barriers to helping or followed a control lesson. The authors used a deception test to measure the time between the start of the unannounced simulated emergency and seeking help behaviour and the number of particular helping actions.ResultsThe authors randomised 72 participants to both groups. 22 participants were included in the analysis for the experimental group and 36 in the control group. The authors found no statistically or clinically significant differences for any of the outcome measures. The time until seeking help (geometrical mean and 95% CI) was 55.5 s (42.9 to 72.0) in the experimental group and 56.5 s (43.0 to 74.3) in the control group. 57% of the participants asked a bystander to seek help, 40% left the victim to seek help themselves and 3% did not seek any help.ConclusionSupplementary training on dealing with barriers to helping did not alter the helping behaviour. The timing and appropriateness of the aid provided can be improved.Trial RegistrationThe authors registered this trial at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00954161.

14 keywords...

hide…