Effectiveness of Blended Versus Traditional Refresher Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Prospective Observational Study

Background: Generally, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills decline substantially over time. By combining web-based self-regulated learning with hands-on practice, blended training can be a time- and resource-efficient approach enabling individuals to acquire or refresh CPR skills at their convenience. However, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of blended CPR refresher training compared with that of the traditional method. Objective: This study investigated and compared the effectiveness of traditional and blended CPR training through 6-month and 12-month refresher sessions with CPR ability indicators. Methods: This study recruited participants aged >= 18 years from the Automated External Defibrillator Donation Project. The participants were divided into 4 groups based on the format of the CPR training and refresher training received: (1) initial traditional training (a 30-minute instructor-led, hands-on session) and 6-month traditional refresher training (Traditional6 group), (2) initial traditional training and 6-month blended refresher training (an 18-minute e-learning module; Mixed6 group), (3) initial traditional training and 12-month blended refresher training (Mixed12 group), and (4) initial blended training and 6-month blended refresher training (Blended6 group). CPR knowledge and performance were evaluated immediately after initial training. For each group, following initial training but before refresher training, a learning effectiveness assessment was conducted at 12 and 24 months. CPR knowledge was assessed using a written test with 15 multiple-choice questions, and CPR performance was assessed through an examiner-rated skill test and objectively through manikin feedback. A generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze changes in CPR ability indicators. Results: This study recruited 1163 participants (mean age 41.82, SD 11.6 years; n=725, 62.3% female), with 332 (28.5%), 270 (23.2%), 258 (22.2%), and 303 (26.1%) participants in the Mixed6, Traditional6, Mixed12, and Blended6 groups, respectively. No significant between-group difference was observed in knowledge acquisition after initial training ( P =.23). All groups met the criteria for high -quality CPR skills (ie, average compression depth: 5-6 cm; average compression rate: 100-120 beats/min; chest recoil rate: >80%); however, a higher proportion (98/303, 32.3%) of participants receiving blended training initially demonstrated high -quality CPR skills. At 12 and 24 months, CPR skills had declined in all the groups, but the decline was significantly higher in the Mixed12 group, whereas the differences were not significant between the other groups. This finding indicates that frequent retraining can maintain high -quality CPR skills and that blended refresher training is as effective as traditional refresher training. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that 6 -month refresher training sessions for CPR are more effective for maintaining high -quality CPR skills, and that as refreshers, self -learning e -modules are as effective as instructor -led sessions. Although the blended learning approach is cost and resource effective, factors such as participant demographics, training environment, and level of engagement must be considered to maximize the potential of this approach.