Document Type

Review Article


Emergency Medicine; Community Health Sciences


Background: Traditional, instructor led, in-person training of CPR skills has become more challenging due to COVID-19 pandemic. We compared the learning outcomes of standard in-person CPR training (ST) with alternative methods of training such as hybrid or online-only training (AT) on CPR performance, quality, and knowledge among laypersons with no previous CPR training.
Methods: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for relevant articles from January 1995 to May 2020. Covidence was used to review articles by two independent researchers. Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess quality of the manuscripts.
Results: Of the 978 articles screened, twenty met the final inclusion criteria. All included studies had an experimental design and moderate to strong global quality rating. The trainees in ST group performed better on calling 911, time to initiate chest compressions, hand placement and chest compression depth. Trainees in AT group performed better in assessing scene safety, calling for help, response time including initiating first rescue breathing, adequate ventilation volume, compression rates, shorter hands-off time, confidence, willingness to perform CPR, ability to follow CPR algorithm, and equivalent or better knowledge retention than standard teaching methodology.
Conclusion: AT methods of CPR training provide an effective alternative to the standard in-person CPR for large scale public training.


Pagination are not provided by the author/publisher

Publication (Name of Journal)

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.