Table 2 Study findings of the studies investigating the effectiveness of first aid education for burns, bleeding and skin wounds. 2A. Burns, 2B. Bleeding, 2C. Skin wounds

 Knowledge: Burns FA

FA training vs no intervention

Statistically significant:

1.5±1.0 vs 1.3±1.0

MD: 0.2, 95% CI [0.08;0.32]

(p < 0.001)^a

in favour of first aid training

1, 542 vs 554, 10-11 years

Frederick, 2000 [26]

 Knowledge: what to do when clothes catch fire

Pre vs 11 month follow-up

Statistically significant:

1873 (85%) vs 179 (57%)

OR: 0·41 ^b,d

(p < 0.01)

in favour of first aid training

1, 2197 vs 312, 10-15 years

Heard, 2013 [27]

 Knowledge: Burns FA

Pre vs 11 month follow-up

Statistically significant:

1820 (83%) vs 258 (83%)

OR: 1.83 ^b,d

(p = 0.03)

in favour of first aid training

1, 2197 vs 312, 10-15 years

Heard, 2013 [27]

 Knowledge: Burns FA (score >60%)

Pre vs post

Statistically significant:

5 (5%) vs 99 (99%) ^e

RR: 19.80^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Knowledge: Burns FA (score >60%)

Pre vs 2 month follow-up

Statistically significant:

5 (5%) vs 100 (100%) ^e

RR: 20.00^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Skills: Burns practice (score >60%)

Pre vs post

Statistically significant:

0 (0%) vs 94 (94%) ^e

RR: 189.00^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Skills: Burns practice (score >60%)

Pre vs 2 month follow-up

Statistically significant:

0 (0%) vs 74 (74%) ^e

RR: 149.00^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Skills: Order of FA response

FA training vs sham intervention

Scenario (severe burn injury)

Not statistically significant:

5 (3%) vs 1 (0·5%) ^e

RR: 7.52, 95% CI [0.89;63.69]^{a c}

(p = 0.06)

1, 147 vs 221, 11-16 years

Campbell, 2001 [25]

 Skills: Correct procedures listed

FA training vs sham intervention

Scenario (severe burn injury)

Not statistically significant:

104 (73%) vs 149 (69%) ^e

RR: 1.05, 95% CI [0.91;1.21]^{a c}

(p = 0.49)

1, 147 vs 221, 11-16 years

Campbell, 2001 [25]

 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FA

Pre vs 1 week post

Statistically significant:

74 (69%) vs 94 (90%) ^e

RR: 1.33^{a b}

(p < 0.001- overall p)

in favour of first aid training

1, 107 vs 102, 11-12 years

Wilks, 2015 [29]

 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FA

Pre vs 8 week follow-up

Statistically significant:

74 (69%) vs 93 (82%) ^e

RR: 1.28^{a b}

(p < 0.001- overall p)

in favour of first aid training

1, 107 vs 105, 11-12 years

Wilks, 2015 [29]

 Knowledge: Haemorrhage FA (score >60%)

Pre vs post

Statistically significant:

34 (34%) vs 97 (97%) ^e

RR: 2.85^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Knowledge: Haemorrhage FA (score >60%)

Pre vs 2 month follow-up

Statistically significant:

34 (34%) vs 92 (92%) ^e

RR: 2.71^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Skills: Order of FA response

FA training vs sham intervention

Scenario (severe glass wound)

Statistically significant:

21 (14%) vs 10 (5%) ^e

RR: 3.16, 95% CI [1.53;6.51]^a

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 147 vs 221, 11-15 years

Campbell, 2001 [25]

 Skills: Correct procedures listed

FA training vs sham intervention

Scenario (severe glass wound)

Not statistically significant:

75 (52%) vs 125 (57%) ^e

RR: 0.90, 95% CI [0.74;1.10]^{a c}

(p = 0.41)

1, 147 vs 221, 11-15 years

Campbell, 2001 [25]

 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FA

Pre vs 1 week post

Statistically significant:

74 (69%) vs 94 (90%) ^e

RR: 1·33^{a b}

(p < 0.001- overall p)

in favour of first aid training

1, 107 vs 102, 11-12 years

Wilks, 2016 [29]

 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FA

Pre vs 8 week follow-up

Statistically significant:

74 (69%) vs 93 (82%) ^e

RR: 1.28^{a b}

(p < 0.001- overall p)

in favour of first aid training

1, 107 vs 105, 11-12 years

Wilks, 2016 [29]

 Knowledge: Wounds FA (score >60%)

Pre vs post

Statistically significant:

47 (47%) vs 96 (96%) ^e

RR: 2.04^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Knowledge: Wounds FA (score >60%)

Pre vs 2 month follow-up

Statistically significant:

47 (47%) vs 90 (90%) ^e

RR: 1.91^{a b}

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 100, 11-15 years

Wafik, 2014 [30]

 Skills: Order of FA response

FA training vs sham intervention

Scenario (severe glass wound)

Statistically significant:

21 (14%) vs 10 (5%) ^e

RR: 3.16, 95% CI [1.53;6.51]^a

(p < 0.001)

in favour of first aid training

1, 147 vs 221, 11-16 years

Campbell, 2001 [25]

 Skills: Correct procedures listed

FA training vs sham intervention

Scenario (severe glass wound)

Not statistically significant:

75 (52%) vs 125 (57%) ^e

RR: 0.90, 95% CI [0.74;1.10]^{a c}

(p = 0.41)

1, 147 vs 221, 11-16 years

Campbell, 2001 [25]