METHODS: Data collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, professional students in medicine and nursing, and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full texts was done with the software MAXQDA. Full texts were analysed with regard to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a methodological quality assessment was undertaken.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies from six countries (Brazil, China, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somaliland and Turkey) were included. All studies reported significant results in at least one outcome measure. However, from the available literature, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the most effective interventions. No meta-analysis could be calculated due to the large heterogeneity of intervention content, evaluation design and outcome measures. Studies with contact interventions (either face-to-face or video) demonstrated attitudinal change. There was a clear lack of studies focusing on discriminatory behaviours. Accordingly, training of specific communication and clinical skills was lacking in most studies, with the exception of one study that showed a positive effect of training interview skills on attitudes. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented. The methodological quality of most studies was relatively low, with the exception of two studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There is an increase in studies on anti-stigma interventions among professional students in LMICs. Some of these studies used contact interventions and showed positive effects. A stronger focus on clinical and communication skills and behaviour-related outcomes is needed in future studies.
METHODS: A two-arm randomized controlled trial study using double blinding method was conducted with 150 nurses from two referral hospitals. Stratified simple random method was used to choose eligible nurses. For video self-instruction training (intervention group), participants learnt the CPR training via computer in a simulation lab for 7 days, in their own available time whereas for instructor-led training (control group), a 1-day program was conducted by AHA certified instructors. A generalized estimated equation model was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Generalized Estimated Equation showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention group (p = 0.055) and control group (p = 0.121) for both CPR knowledge and skills levels respectively, whereas higher probability of having good knowledge and skills in a post-test, one month and three-month follow-up compared to baseline respectively, adjusted with covariates (p < 0.05). Participants had a lower probability of having good skills at 6-month follow-up compared to baseline, adjusted with covariates (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: This study showed no significant differences between the two training methods, hence video self-instruction training is suggested can train more nurses in a less cost-effective manner to maximize resource utilization and quality nursing care. It is suggested to be used to improve knowledge and skills among nurses to ensure cardiac arrest patients receive excellent resuscitation care.