• Martín Otero-Agra, Roberto Barcala-Furelos, Iker Besada-Saavedra, Lucía Peixoto-Pino, Santiago Martínez-Isasi, and Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez.
• REMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Galicia, Spain.
• Emerg Med J. 2019 Nov 1; 36 (11): 653-659.

ObjectiveGamification 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.Methods489 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).ResultsGAM (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.ConclusionsGAM 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.© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

30 keywords...

hide…