Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Let the kids play: gamification as a CPR training methodology in secondary school students. A quasi-experimental manikin simulation study
  1. Martín Otero-Agra1,
  2. Roberto Barcala-Furelos1,
  3. Iker Besada-Saavedra1,
  4. Lucía Peixoto-Pino2,
  5. Santiago Martínez-Isasi3,
  6. Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez4
  1. 1 REMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Galicia, Spain
  2. 2 Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
  3. 3 Health and Podiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Nursing and Podiatry, Universidade da Coruna, A Coruna, Galicia, Spain
  4. 4 CLINURSID Research Group, Nursing Department, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr. Roberto Barcala-Furelos, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Pontevedra 36005, Spain; roberto.barcala{at}uvigo.es

Abstract

Objective Gamification is a non-evaluation and competition-based training methodology with high emotional involvement. The goal of this study was to evaluate gamification methodology as compared with other existing methodologies when teaching cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to secondary school students.

Methods 489 secondary school students from two high schools in Spain participated in this randomised-block quasi-experimental study in February 2018. The students were classified into different groups. Each group received CPR training with a different methodology: GAM (gamification-based training as a compulsory but non-tested academic activity to learn by playing in teams, with instructor and visual feedback); EVA (training based on subsequent evaluation as a motivational incentive, with instructor and visual feedback); VFC (visual feedback complementary, training based on a non-compulsory and non-tested academic activity, with instructor and visual feedback); TC (traditional complementary, training based on a non-compulsory and non-tested academic activity, with instructor feedback). After a week, each student performed a 2 min hands-only CPR test and quality of CPR was assessed. Visual feedback in training and CPR variables in test were provided by the QCPR Instructor App using a Little Anne manikin, both from Laerdal (Norway).

Results GAM (89.56%; 95% CI 86.71 to 92.42) methodology resulted in significantly higher scores for CPR quality than VFC and TC (81.96%; 95% CI 78.04% to 85.88% and 64.11%; 95% CI 58.23 to 69.99). GAM (61.77%; 95% CI 56.09 to 67.45) methodology also resulted in significantly higher scores for correct rate than VFC and TC (48.41%; 95% CI 41.15% to 55.67% and 17.28%; 95% CI 10.94 to 23.62). 93.4% of GAM methodology participants obtained >50 mm of compression mean depth which was a significantly higher proportion than among students in VFC and TC (78.0% and 71.9%). No differences between GAM and EVA were found. A confidence level of 95% has been assigned to all values.

Conclusions GAM methodology resulted in higher CPR quality than non-tested methods of academic training with instructor feedback or visual feedback. Gamification should be considered as an alternative teaching method for Basic Life Support (BLS) in younger individuals.

  • gamification
  • CPR
  • teenagers
  • secondary school education
  • feedback

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors MO-A analysed the results, planned and wrote the study. RB-F planned and submitted the study. IB-S planned, and performed the design of the study and the data collection. LP-P planned and performed the design of the study and the data collection. SM-I analysed the results and performed the design of the study. AR-N planned the study.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Sciences’ Ethics Committee (Vigo University, Spain) with the code 13-2802-18.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Parental/guardian consent obtained.

Linked Articles

  • Commentary
    Emily Oliver