Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)NCT07851311
Comparing Instructor-led Versus Blended Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Among Nursing Students
A study testing Blended learning and Instructor-led training in people with Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Knowledge, run by Applied Science Private University at 1 site in Jordan.
Trial summary
Objectives of the Study The current study aimed to investigate how individual and team personality traits, academic motivation, and academic procrastination predict CPR training outcomes at individual and team levels, and to what extent these associations vary across different CPR training modalities (instructor-led… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), Knowledge, Skill Retention
- What is being tested?
- Blended learning and Instructor-led training
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 208 participants
- Where
- 1 siteJordan
- Study dates
- 13 May 2025to 31 Jul 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Third- and fourth-year students
- Had already completed foundational coursework.
Who cannot join
- students enrolled in the program through bridging tracks
- students who had completed the comprehensive clinical course
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Objectives of the Study The current study aimed to investigate how individual and team personality traits, academic motivation, and academic procrastination predict CPR training outcomes at individual and team levels, and to what extent these associations vary across different CPR training modalities (instructor-led versus blended).
Material and methods Design
Read more
This study employed an experimental, posttest-only control group design.
Subjects The target population comprised undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the BSN program. The inclusion criteria were determined as follows: (1) third- and fourth-year students, (2) they had already completed foundational coursework. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria were: (1) students enrolled in the program through bridging tracks, and (2) students who had completed the comprehensive clinical course.
Potential participants were randomly selected from eligible nursing students listed in academic records, screened for inclusion criteria, and invited via email. A total of 133 nursing students were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two study groups. They were then divided into groups of 6 using block randomization to balance group sizes. Because the interventions differed in content and delivery, blinding of students and instructors was not possible.
The required sample size was calculated through an independent samples t-test aimed at detecting a moderate effect size (Cohen's d = 0.5) between the two training groups, with a statistical power of 0.80 and a significance level of 0.05. Based on that, a minimum of 63 students per group was required to ensure adequate power to detect statistically significant differences in the measured outcomes.
Randomization Participants were selected using a random sampling technique following the acquisition of a complete list of eligible nursing students from official academic records. Based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a filtered list of potential participants was generated. From this list, students were randomly selected and invited to participate through a recruitment link sent to their email addresses. Those who filled out the link were screened again for eligibility, and then the researchers contacted those who met the criteria to notify them of their enrollment. Recruited participants were then assigned to one of the two study groups, ensuring an unbiased and systematic approach to participant recruitment (Figure 1). Randomization utilized stratified randomization (to ensure that the distribution of both nursing schools is similar across treatment groups) and block randomization (to ensure that the number of participants assigned to each treatment group remains roughly equal throughout the trial). Due to the varying educational materials and delivery methods, it was not possible to blind or conceal the allocation to either students or instructors.
Interventions All CPR training sessions were conducted over nine weeks (May - July 2025) at the Life Support Center at the private university, which is accredited by the American Heart Association (AHA) and equipped with high-fidelity manikins and advanced audiovisual technology. Following participant selection, students were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups, each receiving a different CPR training modality. Both training methods were based on the most recent guidelines from the AHA and delivered by certified instructors to ensure consistency and quality of instruction (American Heart Association [AHA], 2020).
Each participant received an official invitation via email, which included a cover letter, details of the training schedule, course materials, and an informed consent form. To reduce potential external influences, both groups received their respective training at the same time. Upon completion of the training, participants were immediately asked to complete the postest self-reported questionnaires through Google Forms, with all items set as mandatory. Students were instructed to complete the surveys independently and were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses.
Intervention and Data Collection All CPR training sessions were conducted over nine weeks (May - July 2025) at the Life Support Center at the private university, which is accredited by the American Heart Association (AHA) and equipped with high-fidelity manikins and advanced audiovisual technology, providing a realistic and interactive environment to support hands-on, experiential learning under standardized conditions. Following participant selection, students were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups, each receiving a different CPR training modality. Both training methods were based on the most recent AHA guidelines and delivered by certified instructors to ensure consistency and quality of instruction.
participants were assessed at day of the course and after 3 months.
Read the detailed description
Primary outcomes
CPR training outcomes (written exam and competency checklists) The written exam for BLS, developed by the AHA, consists of 25 multiple-choice questions with four answer options. The exam covers critical areas of CPR, including response and activation, high-quality CPR, AED use, and team dynamics. The passing score is 84%, with a remedial attempt available for those who fail. Skills were assessed using an AHA-developed adult and infant checklist. Students have to complete all tasks to pass the checklist. If they fail, they have one extra chance to practice and then retake the exam.
CPR team performance
Team performance was assessed during a 10-minute CPR scenario. Two approaches were used, including:
Direct observation and recording by two independent data collectors: duration of check pulse (from putting hands on the carotid to declare no pulse), time to start CPR (from declaring no pulse to start compression), time to start CPR (from finding the patient to start compression), time to first shock (from AED arrival), shock pause: time to start CPR after shock.
Feedback device attached to the manikins to measure: chest compression fraction (CCF), CPR score, compression score, total number of compressions, average rate, percentage of correct rate, average depth (mm), percentage of adequate depth, percentage of good release, ventilation total score, total ventilations, ventilations with good volume, compression time (minutes), pause time (minutes), longest pause (seconds).
Secondary outcomes Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) The TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003) assesses five essential personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability, measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1= disagree strongly and 7 = agree strongly). Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.752.
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
The MSLQ is a self-report instrument designed to assess students' motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies for a college course (Pintrich et al., 1991). The questionnaire consists of 81 items, measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all true of me and 7 = Very true of me), and forms 15 subscales. Three subscales were chosen from the MSLQ:
Value Component: Task Value (6 items): Task value refers to students' perceptions of the course material in terms of interest, importance, and utility. High task value should lead to more involvement in one's learning. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.934.
Expectancy Component/ Control of Learning Beliefs (4 items): Control of learning refers to students' beliefs that their efforts to learn will result in positive outcomes. If students believe that their study efforts make a difference in their knowledge, they should be more likely to examine more strategically and effectively. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.817.
Expectancy Component/ Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance (8 items): The items comprising this scale assess students' performance expectations in addition to their confidence in skills and ability to perform that task. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.870.
The Academic Procrastination Scale-Short (APS-S) The Academic Procrastination Scale-Short (APS-S) measured the severity of students' academic procrastination (Yockey, 2016). The APS-S comprises five items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally agree, 5 = totally disagree). Higher scores indicated a greater tendency to procrastinate on academic tasks. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.897.
Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning This instrument, developed by the National League for Nursing (NLN), comprises 13 items designed to assess students' satisfaction with the instructional process and their self-confidence in applying acquired skills. It consists of two subscales: Satisfaction with Current Learning (5 items), which evaluates the perceived effectiveness, clarity, and instructional support, and Self-Confidence in Learning (8 items), which measures students' confidence in their ability to apply and evaluate the learning outcomes. Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating greater levels of satisfaction and self-confidence. The scale has demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.94 for satisfaction and 0.87 for self-confidence (NLN, 2020).
Basic Resuscitation Skills Self-Efficacy Scale (BRS-SES) This 18-item scale was developed based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory and informed by the European Resuscitation Council guidelines and prior validated resuscitation instruments (Hernández-Padilla et al., 2016). It assesses nursing students' confidence in performing key resuscitation tasks. Participants rate their confidence on a 0-100 scale, where higher scores indicate greater perceived self-efficacy in performing basic resuscitation procedures. The BRS-SES has demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.96).
- Being tested
- Blended learning, Instructor-led training
- Medical subject headings
- Personal Satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Blended learningOther
Students in the intervention group (blended learning, HeartCode course) attended an online session lasting about 2 hours, with integrated test questions to assess their knowledge and progress. Then, they attended hands-on training (2-3 hours) in the simulation lab
Instructor-led trainingOther
Students in this group received a traditional, face-to-face BLS course in a classroom and simulation lab setting. The training consisted of a 4-5-hour interactive session featuring theoretical videos, demonstrations, guided discussions, and hands-on practice with high-fidelity manikins. Emphasis was placed on immediate feedback, real-time technique correction, and active engagement through instructor supervision.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Instructor-Led | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Other: Instructor-led training |
| Heartcode | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: Blended learning |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
CPR knowledge using the AHA written exam
Measured using the AHA -BLS written exam. The written exam was composed of 25 multiple-choice questions (with four alternatives) about BLS science, with a total score of 100%, and the passing score was set at 84%. Students have one attempt at remediation if their scores range between 76% and 84%, by correcting their own mistakes on the same form.
Measured: Initial measure at the day of the course
CPR Competency using the AHA competency checklist
The BLS adult and infant checklists (AHA 2025) were used to check the participants' competence level. Participants had to complete each step in the checklist to pass the exam. According to the AHA guidelines, if a participant failed to meet all the criteria, the instructor had to indicate the step to the students and had to allow time for practice before a remedial test was conducted. Each participant is allowed one remedial attempt only.
Measured: Initial measure at the day of the course
Skills relention using the AHA competency checklist
The BLS adult and infant checklists (AHA 2025) were used to check the participants' competence level. Participants had to complete each step in the checklist to pass the exam.
Measured: After 3 months of attending the training
Knowledge retention using the AHA written exam
Measured using the AHA -BLS written exam. The written exam was composed of 25 multiple-choice questions (with four alternatives) about BLS science, with a total score of 100%, and the passing score was set at 84%. Students have one attempt at remediation if their scores range between 76% and 84%, by correcting their own mistakes on the same form.
Measured: After 3 months of attending the training
Secondary outcomes (3)
Satisfaction and Self-Confidence: using the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning questionnaire was developed by the National League for Nursing
The instrument comprised 13 items to measure student satisfaction with the instructional process and their self-confidence in what they learned. The first subscale measures satisfaction and consists of five items, and the second subscale measures self-confidence, which consists of eight items. Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction and self-confidence levels.
Measured: Initial measure at the day of the course
Team performance using observation and feedback device during a 10-minute CPR scenario
- Direct observation and recording by two independent data collectors: This method was used to collect timing and response metrics (Process Measures), which measured how quickly and efficiently the team initiates life-saving steps. Including: duration of check pulse (from putting hands on the carotid to declare no pulse), time to start CPR (from declaring no pulse to start compression), time to start CPR (from finding the patient to start compression), time to first shock (from AED arrival), shock pause: time to start CPR after shock.
- A feedback device attached to the manikins: This method was used to measure performance \& quality metrics (QCPR Data), which reflect the quality of CPR performance. Including: chest compression fraction (CCF), CPR score, compression score, total number of compressions, average rate, percentage of correct rate, average depth (cm), percentage of adequate depth, percentage of good release, ventilation total score, compression time, and pause time
Measured: Initial at the day of the training
Retention of team performance using observation and feedback device during a 10-minute CPR scenario
- Direct observation and recording by two independent data collectors: This method was used to collect timing and response metrics (Process Measures), which measured how quickly and efficiently the team initiates life-saving steps. Including: duration of check pulse (from putting hands on the carotid to declare no pulse), time to start CPR (from declaring no pulse to start compression), time to start CPR (from finding the patient to start compression), time to first shock (from AED arrival), shock pause: time to start CPR after shock.
- A feedback device attached to the manikins: This method was used to measure performance \& quality metrics (QCPR Data), which reflect the quality of CPR performance. Including: chest compression fraction (CCF), CPR score, compression score, total number of compressions, average rate, percentage of correct rate, average depth (cm), percentage of adequate depth, percentage of good release, ventilation total score, compression time, and pause time
Measured: After 3 months of attending the training
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Oct 2026
- Study start13 May 2025
- Primary completion31 Jul 2025
- Study completion31 Jul 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 208 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Applied Science Private University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Elham Othman, Applied Science Private University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07851311
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- DRGS-2025-2
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 20 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 1 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
• Abdulwahhab, M. (2017). Effectiveness of simulation techniques on the nursing students knowledge toward cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults at college of nursing/university of baghdad. Kufa Journal for Nursing Sciences, 7(1), 24-27. https://doi.org/10.36321/kjns.vi20171.2288 • Andérson, G., Gaetz, M., & Statz, C. (2012). Cpr skill retention of first aid attendants within the workplace. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 27(4), 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049023x1200088x • Blewer, A., Leary, M., Esposito, E., González, M., Riegel, B., Bobrow, B., … & Abella, B. (2012). Continuous chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation training promotes rescuer self-confidence and increased secondary training. Critical Care Medicine, 40(3), 787-792. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e318236f2ca • Fukushima, H., Asai, H., Seki, T., Takano, K., & Bolstad, F. (2020). The effect of 10-min dispatch-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a randomized simulation pilot study. International Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-020-00287-9 • Gebremedhn, E., Gebregergs, G., & Anderson, B. (2014). The knowledge level of final year undergraduate health science students and medical interns about cardiopulmonary resuscitation at a university teaching hospital of northwest ethiopia. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2014.01.005 • Hassan, E. and Elsaman, S. (2022). The effect of simulation-based flipped classroom on acquisition of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills: a simulation-based randomized trial. Nursing in Critical Care, 28(3), 344-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12816 • Jeong, H., Ju, D., Lee, A., Lee, J., Kang, N., Choi, E., … & Moon, S. (2022). Effect of a hybrid team-based advanced cardiopulmonary life support simulation program for clinical nurses. Plos One, 17(12), e0278512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278512 • Kim, E. and Cho, K. (2023). Comparing the e
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparing Instructor-led Versus Blended Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Among Nursing Students
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07851311
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DRGS-2025-2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 208 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Applied Science Private UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 13 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Jul 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Objectives of the Study The current study aimed to investigate how individual and team personality traits, academic motivation, and academic procrastination predict CPR training outcomes at individual and team levels, and to what extent these associations vary across different CPR training modalities (instructor-led versus blended).
Material and methods Design
This study employed an experimental, posttest-only control group design.
Subjects The target population comprised undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the BSN program. The inclusion criteria were determined as follows: (1) third- and fourth-year students, (2) they had already completed foundational coursework. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria were: (1) students enrolled in the program through bridging tracks, and (2) students who had completed the comprehensive clinical course.
Potential participants were randomly selected from eligible nursing students listed in academic records, screened for inclusion criteria, and invited via email. A total of 133 nursing students were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two study groups. They were then divided into groups of 6 using block randomization to balance group sizes. Because the interventions differed in content and delivery, blinding of students and instructors was not possible.
The required sample size was calculated through an independent samples t-test aimed at detecting a moderate effect size (Cohen's d = 0.5) between the two training groups, with a statistical power of 0.80 and a significance level of 0.05. Based on that, a minimum of 63 students per group was required to ensure adequate power to detect statistically significant differences in the measured outcomes.
Randomization Participants were selected using a random sampling technique following the acquisition of a complete list of eligible nursing students from official academic records. Based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a filtered list of potential participants was generated. From this list, students were randomly selected and invited to participate through a recruitment link sent to their email addresses. Those who filled out the link were screened again for eligibility, and then the researchers contacted those who met the criteria to notify them of their enrollment. Recruited participants were then assigned to one of the two study groups, ensuring an unbiased and systematic approach to participant recruitment (Figure 1). Randomization utilized stratified randomization (to ensure that the distribution of both nursing schools is similar across treatment groups) and block randomization (to ensure that the number of participants assigned to each treatment group remains roughly equal throughout the trial). Due to the varying educational materials and delivery methods, it was not possible to blind or conceal the allocation to either students or instructors.
Interventions All CPR training sessions were conducted over nine weeks (May - July 2025) at the Life Support Center at the private university, which is accredited by the American Heart Association (AHA) and equipped with high-fidelity manikins and advanced audiovisual technology. Following participant selection, students were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups, each receiving a different CPR training modality. Both training methods were based on the most recent guidelines from the AHA and delivered by certified instructors to ensure consistency and quality of instruction (American Heart Association [AHA], 2020).
Each participant received an official invitation via email, which included a cover letter, details of the training schedule, course materials, and an informed consent form. To reduce potential external influences, both groups received their respective training at the same time. Upon completion of the training, participants were immediately asked to complete the postest self-reported questionnaires through Google Forms, with all items set as mandatory. Students were instructed to complete the surveys independently and were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses.
Intervention and Data Collection All CPR training sessions were conducted over nine weeks (May - July 2025) at the Life Support Center at the private university, which is accredited by the American Heart Association (AHA) and equipped with high-fidelity manikins and advanced audiovisual technology, providing a realistic and interactive environment to support hands-on, experiential learning under standardized conditions. Following participant selection, students were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups, each receiving a different CPR training modality. Both training methods were based on the most recent AHA guidelines and delivered by certified instructors to ensure consistency and quality of instruction.
participants were assessed at day of the course and after 3 months.
Detailed description
Primary outcomes
CPR training outcomes (written exam and competency checklists) The written exam for BLS, developed by the AHA, consists of 25 multiple-choice questions with four answer options. The exam covers critical areas of CPR, including response and activation, high-quality CPR, AED use, and team dynamics. The passing score is 84%, with a remedial attempt available for those who fail. Skills were assessed using an AHA-developed adult and infant checklist. Students have to complete all tasks to pass the checklist. If they fail, they have one extra chance to practice and then retake the exam.
CPR team performance
Team performance was assessed during a 10-minute CPR scenario. Two approaches were used, including:
Direct observation and recording by two independent data collectors: duration of check pulse (from putting hands on the carotid to declare no pulse), time to start CPR (from declaring no pulse to start compression), time to start CPR (from finding the patient to start compression), time to first shock (from AED arrival), shock pause: time to start CPR after shock.
Feedback device attached to the manikins to measure: chest compression fraction (CCF), CPR score, compression score, total number of compressions, average rate, percentage of correct rate, average depth (mm), percentage of adequate depth, percentage of good release, ventilation total score, total ventilations, ventilations with good volume, compression time (minutes), pause time (minutes), longest pause (seconds).
Secondary outcomes Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) The TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003) assesses five essential personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability, measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1= disagree strongly and 7 = agree strongly). Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.752.
The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
The MSLQ is a self-report instrument designed to assess students' motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies for a college course (Pintrich et al., 1991). The questionnaire consists of 81 items, measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all true of me and 7 = Very true of me), and forms 15 subscales. Three subscales were chosen from the MSLQ:
Value Component: Task Value (6 items): Task value refers to students' perceptions of the course material in terms of interest, importance, and utility. High task value should lead to more involvement in one's learning. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.934.
Expectancy Component/ Control of Learning Beliefs (4 items): Control of learning refers to students' beliefs that their efforts to learn will result in positive outcomes. If students believe that their study efforts make a difference in their knowledge, they should be more likely to examine more strategically and effectively. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.817.
Expectancy Component/ Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance (8 items): The items comprising this scale assess students' performance expectations in addition to their confidence in skills and ability to perform that task. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.870.
The Academic Procrastination Scale-Short (APS-S) The Academic Procrastination Scale-Short (APS-S) measured the severity of students' academic procrastination (Yockey, 2016). The APS-S comprises five items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally agree, 5 = totally disagree). Higher scores indicated a greater tendency to procrastinate on academic tasks. Cronbach's alpha in the current study was 0.897.
Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning This instrument, developed by the National League for Nursing (NLN), comprises 13 items designed to assess students' satisfaction with the instructional process and their self-confidence in applying acquired skills. It consists of two subscales: Satisfaction with Current Learning (5 items), which evaluates the perceived effectiveness, clarity, and instructional support, and Self-Confidence in Learning (8 items), which measures students' confidence in their ability to apply and evaluate the learning outcomes. Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating greater levels of satisfaction and self-confidence. The scale has demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.94 for satisfaction and 0.87 for self-confidence (NLN, 2020).
Basic Resuscitation Skills Self-Efficacy Scale (BRS-SES) This 18-item scale was developed based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory and informed by the European Resuscitation Council guidelines and prior validated resuscitation instruments (Hernández-Padilla et al., 2016). It assesses nursing students' confidence in performing key resuscitation tasks. Participants rate their confidence on a 0-100 scale, where higher scores indicate greater perceived self-efficacy in performing basic resuscitation procedures. The BRS-SES has demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.96).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Instructor-Led | Active comparator | Other: Instructor-led training |
| Heartcode | Experimental | Other: Blended learning |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Third- and fourth-year students
- Had already completed foundational coursework.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- students enrolled in the program through bridging tracks
- students who had completed the comprehensive clinical course
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Blended learningStudents in the intervention group (blended learning, HeartCode course) attended an online session lasting about 2 hours, with integrated test questions to assess their knowledge and progress. Then, they attended hands-on training (2-3 hours) in the simulation lab | Other | Heartcode |
| Instructor-led trainingStudents in this group received a traditional, face-to-face BLS course in a classroom and simulation lab setting. The training consisted of a 4-5-hour interactive session featuring theoretical videos, demonstrations, guided discussions, and hands-on practice with high-fidelity manikins. Emphasis was placed on immediate feedback, real-time technique correction, and active engagement through instructor supervision. | Other | Instructor-Led |
Primary outcome
CPR knowledge using the AHA written exam
Time frame: Initial measure at the day of the course
Measured using the AHA -BLS written exam. The written exam was composed of 25 multiple-choice questions (with four alternatives) about BLS science, with a total score of 100%, and the passing score was set at 84%. Students have one attempt at remediation if their scores range between 76% and 84%, by correcting their own mistakes on the same form.
CPR Competency using the AHA competency checklist
Time frame: Initial measure at the day of the course
The BLS adult and infant checklists (AHA 2025) were used to check the participants' competence level. Participants had to complete each step in the checklist to pass the exam. According to the AHA guidelines, if a participant failed to meet all the criteria, the instructor had to indicate the step to the students and had to allow time for practice before a remedial test was conducted. Each participant is allowed one remedial attempt only.
Skills relention using the AHA competency checklist
Time frame: After 3 months of attending the training
The BLS adult and infant checklists (AHA 2025) were used to check the participants' competence level. Participants had to complete each step in the checklist to pass the exam.
Knowledge retention using the AHA written exam
Time frame: After 3 months of attending the training
Measured using the AHA -BLS written exam. The written exam was composed of 25 multiple-choice questions (with four alternatives) about BLS science, with a total score of 100%, and the passing score was set at 84%. Students have one attempt at remediation if their scores range between 76% and 84%, by correcting their own mistakes on the same form.
3 secondary outcomes
Satisfaction and Self-Confidence: using the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning questionnaire was developed by the National League for Nursing
Time frame: Initial measure at the day of the course
Team performance using observation and feedback device during a 10-minute CPR scenario
Time frame: Initial at the day of the training
Retention of team performance using observation and feedback device during a 10-minute CPR scenario
Time frame: After 3 months of attending the training
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Oct 2026.
- Background• Abdulwahhab, M. (2017). Effectiveness of simulation techniques on the nursing students knowledge toward cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults at college of nursing/university of baghdad. Kufa Journal for Nursing Sciences, 7(1), 24-27. https://doi.org/10.36321/kjns.vi20171.2288 • Andérson, G., Gaetz, M., & Statz, C. (2012). Cpr skill retention of first aid attendants within the workplace. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 27(4), 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049023x1200088x • Blewer, A., Leary, M., Esposito, E., González, M., Riegel, B., Bobrow, B., … & Abella, B. (2012). Continuous chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation training promotes rescuer self-confidence and increased secondary training. Critical Care Medicine, 40(3), 787-792. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e318236f2ca • Fukushima, H., Asai, H., Seki, T., Takano, K., & Bolstad, F. (2020). The effect of 10-min dispatch-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a randomized simulation pilot study. International Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-020-00287-9 • Gebremedhn, E., Gebregergs, G., & Anderson, B. (2014). The knowledge level of final year undergraduate health science students and medical interns about cardiopulmonary resuscitation at a university teaching hospital of northwest ethiopia. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2014.01.005 • Hassan, E. and Elsaman, S. (2022). The effect of simulation-based flipped classroom on acquisition of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills: a simulation-based randomized trial. Nursing in Critical Care, 28(3), 344-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12816 • Jeong, H., Ju, D., Lee, A., Lee, J., Kang, N., Choi, E., … & Moon, S. (2022). Effect of a hybrid team-based advanced cardiopulmonary life support simulation program for clinical nurses. Plos One, 17(12), e0278512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278512 • Kim, E. and Cho, K. (2023). Comparing the e
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)
Not yet recruiting
Compression-Only Versus Standard Basic Life Support Training in Nursing Students
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Not yet recruiting
Execution of Prehospital Transesophageal Echocardiography During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Patients With Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA)
Active, not recruiting
The REVIVE-PEEP Trial: Positive End-expiratory Pressure Versus Sham Valve/Zero End-expiratory Pressure in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Manual Ventilation to Improve Neurological Outcomes at Discharge in Adult Patients Suffering an Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital
Active, not recruiting
RACE-CARS - RAndomized Cluster Evaluation of Cardiac ARrest Systems
Cardiac Arrest
RecruitingObservational study
Cardiac Arrest - Ultrasound Detection of Occult Perfusion
Cardiac Arrest, Out-Of-Hospital, Hypotension
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Blended learning and Instructor-led training in people with Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Knowledge, run by Applied Science Private University at 1 site in Jordan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Jordan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
CPR knowledge using the AHA written exam (time frame: Initial measure at the day of the course). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07851311, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Oct 2026.