Comparison of simulation and classical training methods in basic life support education

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare simulation training and classical training methods in basic life support education. Material and Methods: Research is a randomized controlled experimental research. The universe of study consisted of 302 nursing students who were studying at Ege University Faculty of Nursing in 2017-2018 academic year spring semester. How many people will be taken the sampling from universa was determined by power analysis. The sample of the study consisted of 100 nursing students, 50 in the simulation group and 50 in the classical education group selected with the randomization methods. Data were collected through data collection tools in both groups before and after training. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 25.0 version package program was used for statistical analysis of obtained data. G-Power software was used for power analysis. Expert opinions were received for validity analysis of the forms created within the scope of the research, and a pilot implementation study was carried out to evaluate content validity. "Content Validity Index" (CGI) and Kendall's W test were used for expert opinions. Kuder Richardson 20 was used for reliability analysis of the forms. When evaluating research data, descriptive findings were expressed as percentage, mean, standard deviation, and median. Basic life support pre-test and post-test scores for simulation and classical training groups were assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test for normal distribution. According to the test results, it was determined that basic life support knowledge level and application skill total scores of simulation and classical training groups in the pre-test and post-test were normally distributed (p >0.05). Pearson Chi-square test was used for comparison of demographic variables and other qualitative data between simulation and classical training groups, whereas Independent Samples t Test was used for intergroup comparisons of quantitative data.McNemar test was used to compare intragroup scores of before and after training, while Pearson Chi-square test was used to compare correct answers related to basic life support knowledge and skills, and application skill scores. ANOVA (Repeated Measures ANOVA) was performed for repeated measures in the comparison of basic life support knowledge level and application skill scores before and after training and determining the effectiveness of the training. Results: The mean age of all students participating in the study was 21.06±1.20. 20.0% of the simulation group was male, and 80.0% was female.Similarly, 22.0% of the classical training group was male, and 78.0% was female. When the participants were evaluated in terms of the high schoolsthey graduated from,it was seen that 2.0% of the students in the simulation group graduated fromhealthcare vocational high schools and 98.0% from other high schools; whereas in the classical training group, 4.0% of the studentsgraduated from vocational high schools and 96.0% from other high schools. When the working status of the students was evaluated, it was found that 2.0% of the students in the simulation group were working, and 98.0% were not working; whereas 4.0% of the students in the classical training group were working and 96.0% were not working.There was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test mean total scoresof simulation and classical training group for basic life support knowledge level (p = 0.474). However, a statistically significant difference was found between the mean total scores of simulation and classical training group in the post-test (p = 0.018). There was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test mean total scores for basic life support application skill (p = 0.142). In the post-test, however, a statistically significant difference was found in mean total scores for basic life support application skill between the simulation and classical training groups (p < 0.001). It was determined that the education given by simulation method has a moderate effect on the level of knowledge of basic life support (effect size: 0.058, p <.016), and a high level of effect on the ability to apply basic life support (effect size: 0.315, p <.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, basic life support knowledge level and application skills of the students in the simulation group are higher than the classical education group. It has been determined that the effect of the education given by simulation method on basic life support knowledge level and application skill is more effective than the education given by classical education method. It is recommended to determine the needs of the student nurses for basic life support, to update the trainings, to measure the satisfaction levels of the students after the training and to evaluate the permanence of the simulation training. Key words: Basic life support; simulation training; classical education; nursing