IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0178210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of learning styles on the practical performance after the four-step basic life support training approach – An observational cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Hanna Schröder
  • Alexandra Henke
  • Lina Stieger
  • Stefan Beckers
  • Henning Biermann
  • Rolf Rossaint
  • Saša Sopka

Abstract

Background: Learning and training basic life support (BLS)—especially external chest compressions (ECC) within the BLS-algorithm—are essential resuscitation training for laypersons as well as for health care professionals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of learning styles on the performance of BLS and to identify whether all types of learners are sufficiently addressed by Peyton’s four-step approach for BLS training. Methods: A study group of first-year medical students (n = 334) without previous medical knowledge was categorized according to learning styles using the German Lernstilinventar questionnaire based on Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory. Students’ BLS performances were assessed before and after a four-step BLS training approach lasting 4 hours. Standardized BLS training was provided by an educational staff consisting of European Resuscitation Council-certified advanced life support providers and instructors. Pre- and post-intervention BLS performance was evaluated using a single-rescuer-scenario and standardized questionnaires (6-point-Likert-scales: 1 = completely agree, 6 = completely disagree). The recorded points of measurement were the time to start, depth, and frequency of ECC. Results: The study population was categorized according to learning styles: diverging (5%, n = 16), assimilating (36%, n = 121), converging (41%, n = 138), and accommodating (18%, n = 59). Independent of learning styles, both male and female participants showed significant improvement in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance. Based on the Kolb learning styles, no significant differences between the four groups were observed in compression depth, frequency, time to start CPR, or the checklist-based assessment within the baseline assessment. A significant sex effect on the difference between pre- and post-interventional assessment points was observed for mean compression depth and mean compression frequency. Conclusions: The findings of this work show that the four-step-approach for BLS training addresses all types of learners independent of their learning styles and does not lead to significant differences in the performance of CPR.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanna Schröder & Alexandra Henke & Lina Stieger & Stefan Beckers & Henning Biermann & Rolf Rossaint & Saša Sopka, 2017. "Influence of learning styles on the practical performance after the four-step basic life support training approach – An observational cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178210
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178210
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178210&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0178210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.