↓ Skip to main content

Correlation between quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and self-efficacy measured during in-hospital cardiac arrest simulation; preliminary results.

Overview of attention for article published in Acta bio medica Atenei Parmensis, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Correlation between quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and self-efficacy measured during in-hospital cardiac arrest simulation; preliminary results.
Published in
Acta bio medica Atenei Parmensis, March 2015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianluca Gonzi, Fiorella Sestigiani, Antonella D'errico, Antonella Vezzani, Laura Bonfanti, Giancarlo Noto, Giovanna Artioli

Abstract

The concept of self-assess it's a central mechanism in human agency for behavior change and should translate to desirable practice patterns. There are no many studies that have investigated the relationship between the perception of the ability to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the quality of the same. The aim of this work is to investigate the relation between physiological and psychosocial variables in cardiac resuscitation in order to improve the involvement and motivation of professionals in training courses. During the year 2012, 322 medical staff of Ospedale-Universitario of Parma were trained to basic life support defibrillation (BLSD). Before started the course the partecipants were randomly selected among the staff working in the same department to create a team of two persons and involved in a simulation that reproduced the first five minutes that occurs for a cardiac arrest in a medical or surgical department in our hospital before the intervention of the hospital emergency team. Before and after simulation to each participant was asked to answer a self-efficacy questionnaire on a 10-point scale on the management of cardiac. During simulation were registered the activation time of the emergency response system, hands-on time, defibrillation time, number of compression and correct compression rate. Activation time of the emergency response system was 70.52 ± 78.77 seconds. In 55 teams was not made the allert. The defibrillation time was 148.63 ± 58.43 seconds. In 44 teams the defibrillator were used within 120 seconds, in 36 (22.1%) it was not used. Hands-on time average was of 166.20 ± 62.9 seconds. The mean number of compression was 216.22 ± 115.57. The percentage of satisfactory compression was 9.97 ± 21.23 %. The level of self-efficacy was under the average for the 35.6%, while the 26.8% of the participants had a medium level of 5 and the 38.5% of the sample declared to feel an efficacy level included in 6-10. The sense of self efficacy after the simulation was constant in the 38.3% of the sample, while increased in the 30.5% and decreased in the 31.2%. We found no significant correlations between self-efficacy levels and specific results in scenario acting before simulation, instead, after the simulation the skills performances are much more correlated with self-efficacy. The medical staff reported an individual's perception of good efficacy in the management of simulation of cardiac arrest, but it does not correspond to a high skills. An open question is if and how these psychosocial variables may play a role in improving the quality of CPR and if knowledge of the low capacity to manage a cardiac arrest can be translated into the need for the medical staff to be regularly engaged in BLSD retraining.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 31 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Psychology 4 6%
Unspecified 1 1%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 33 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,520,469
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Acta bio medica Atenei Parmensis
#284
of 811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,476
of 276,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta bio medica Atenei Parmensis
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.