TY - JOUR
T1 - Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
T2 - Concerns About Mouth-to-Mouth Contact
AU - Locke, Catherine J.
AU - Berg, Robert A.
AU - Sanders, Arthur B.
AU - Davis, Melinda F.
AU - Milander, Melinda M.
AU - Kern, Karl B.
AU - Ewy, Gordon A.
PY - 1995/5/8
Y1 - 1995/5/8
N2 - Background: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed on only a small percentage of patients who suffer cardiac arrest. We conducted a study to elucidate attitudes toward and potential obstacles to performance of bystander CPR. Methods: Attitude survey of 975 people on the University Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, mailing list. Participants were asked about their willingness to perform CPR under four conditions, with varying relationships (stranger vs relative or friend) and CPR techniques (chest compressions plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation [CC+V] vs chest compressions alone [CC]). Results: Participants rated willingness to perform CPR and concern about disease transmission. Both relationship and CPR technique affected willingness to respond. Only 15% would “definitely” provide CC+V with strangers compared with 68% who would “definitely” perform CC. Even with relatives or friends, only 74% would “definitely” provide CC+V compared with 88% who would “definitely” provide CC. Eighty-two percent of participants were at least “moderately” concerned about disease transmission. Conclusion: Concerns regarding mouth-to-mouth ventilation appear to create substantial barriers to performance of bystander CPR. Intensified educational efforts and investigations of new approaches to bystander CPR are warranted.
AB - Background: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed on only a small percentage of patients who suffer cardiac arrest. We conducted a study to elucidate attitudes toward and potential obstacles to performance of bystander CPR. Methods: Attitude survey of 975 people on the University Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, mailing list. Participants were asked about their willingness to perform CPR under four conditions, with varying relationships (stranger vs relative or friend) and CPR techniques (chest compressions plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation [CC+V] vs chest compressions alone [CC]). Results: Participants rated willingness to perform CPR and concern about disease transmission. Both relationship and CPR technique affected willingness to respond. Only 15% would “definitely” provide CC+V with strangers compared with 68% who would “definitely” perform CC. Even with relatives or friends, only 74% would “definitely” provide CC+V compared with 88% who would “definitely” provide CC. Eighty-two percent of participants were at least “moderately” concerned about disease transmission. Conclusion: Concerns regarding mouth-to-mouth ventilation appear to create substantial barriers to performance of bystander CPR. Intensified educational efforts and investigations of new approaches to bystander CPR are warranted.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028934063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028934063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/archinte.1995.00430090077009
DO - 10.1001/archinte.1995.00430090077009
M3 - Article
C2 - 7726702
AN - SCOPUS:0028934063
SN - 2168-6106
VL - 155
SP - 938
EP - 943
JO - Archives of internal medicine (Chicago, Ill. : 1908)
JF - Archives of internal medicine (Chicago, Ill. : 1908)
IS - 9
ER -