Results
CCM
Hundred and fifty out of 222 eligible people signed up for the study. Each group had 75 participants. However, 21 people dropped out of the study by virtue of not attending the programs. Out of 129 participants, 61 (47.3%) were in the intervention group, and 68 (52.7%) were in the control group (- Consort flow diagram of the study. CCM: conventional classroom method, CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation- Demographic data of both fit-CPR and CCM programs.Values are presented as numbers and percentages (%). CCM: conventional classroom method, CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitationThe intervention group utilized 8 trainers (2 instructors, 2 demonstrators, and 4 facilitators) to complete the program, whereas the control group used 13 (1 lecturer and 12 facilitators). The intervention group took 52.5–57.5 mins to complete the 3 phases (teaching, running, resting, and performing CPR), while the control group took 75 mins (lecture and CPR training).There were significant increments and decrements in knowledge scores for pre-test to post-test and post-test to 6-month retention test, respectively, in both groups (general linear model [GLM] within-subject effect, - Graph comparison of mean scores for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance, high-quality CPR and knowledge, between the Fit-CPR program (solid lines) and CCM (dashed lines). CCM: conventional classroom method- Comparison of mean scores for knowledge, performance, and high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).Comparison of trends between the 2 groups was analyzed using the general linear model (time and group interaction effect).Statistically significant results are In the knowledge sub-group, a significant improvement was seen at the immediate post-test for the intervention group in the indication of CPR (- Knowledge scores for the intervention and control groups.CCM: conventional classroom method, CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitationThe scores for CPR performance also showed significant changes in scores between the pre-test, post-test, and 6-month retention tests for both groups (GLM within-subject effect, Measurement of high-quality CPR components (compression depth, rate, recoil, and minimal interruption) showed that the score of the intervention group increased by 285%, while the control group increased by 151% at the post-test. At the 6-month retention test scores, the intervention group showed a decrease of 11.5%, while the control group recorded a decreased by 9.3%. The trends were significantly different in both groups (GLM within-subject effects, 