Skip to main content

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

From: An educational pathway and teaching materials for first aid training of children in sub-Saharan Africa based on the best available evidence

OutcomeComparisonEffect Size#studies, # participants, ageReference
A. Burns
 Knowledge: Burns FAFA training vs no interventionStatistically 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 yearsFrederick, 2000 [26]
 Knowledge: what to do when clothes catch firePre vs 11 month follow-upStatistically 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 yearsHeard, 2013 [27]
 Knowledge: Burns FAPre vs 11 month follow-upStatistically 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 yearsHeard, 2013 [27]
 Knowledge: Burns FA (score >60%)Pre vs postStatistically significant:
5 (5%) vs 99 (99%) e
RR: 19.80a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Knowledge: Burns FA (score >60%)Pre vs 2 month follow-upStatistically significant:
5 (5%) vs 100 (100%) e
RR: 20.00a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Skills: Burns practice (score >60%)Pre vs postStatistically significant:
0 (0%) vs 94 (94%) e
RR: 189.00a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Skills: Burns practice (score >60%)Pre vs 2 month follow-upStatistically significant:
0 (0%) vs 74 (74%) e
RR: 149.00a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Skills: Order of FA responseFA training vs sham interventionScenario (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 yearsCampbell, 2001 [25]
 Skills: Correct procedures listedFA training vs sham interventionScenario (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 yearsCampbell, 2001 [25]
B. Bleeding
 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FAPre vs 1 week postStatistically significant:
74 (69%) vs 94 (90%) e
RR: 1.33a b
(p < 0.001- overall p)
in favour of first aid training
1, 107 vs 102, 11-12 yearsWilks, 2015 [29]
 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FAPre vs 8 week follow-upStatistically significant:
74 (69%) vs 93 (82%) e
RR: 1.28a b
(p < 0.001- overall p)
in favour of first aid training
1, 107 vs 105, 11-12 yearsWilks, 2015 [29]
 Knowledge: Haemorrhage FA (score >60%)Pre vs postStatistically significant:
34 (34%) vs 97 (97%) e
RR: 2.85a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Knowledge: Haemorrhage FA (score >60%)Pre vs 2 month follow-upStatistically significant:
34 (34%) vs 92 (92%) e
RR: 2.71a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Skills: Order of FA responseFA training vs sham interventionScenario (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 yearsCampbell, 2001 [25]
 Skills: Correct procedures listedFA training vs sham interventionScenario (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 yearsCampbell, 2001 [25]
C. Skin wounds
 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FAPre vs 1 week postStatistically significant:
74 (69%) vs 94 (90%) e
RR: 1·33a b
(p < 0.001- overall p)
in favour of first aid training
1, 107 vs 102, 11-12 yearsWilks, 2016 [29]
 Knowledge: cuts and bleeding FAPre vs 8 week follow-upStatistically significant:
74 (69%) vs 93 (82%) e
RR: 1.28a b
(p < 0.001- overall p)
in favour of first aid training
1, 107 vs 105, 11-12 yearsWilks, 2016 [29]
 Knowledge: Wounds FA (score >60%)Pre vs postStatistically significant:
47 (47%) vs 96 (96%) e
RR: 2.04a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Knowledge: Wounds FA (score >60%)Pre vs 2 month follow-upStatistically significant:
47 (47%) vs 90 (90%) e
RR: 1.91a b
(p < 0.001)
in favour of first aid training
1, 100, 11-15 yearsWafik, 2014 [30]
 Skills: Order of FA responseFA training vs sham interventionScenario (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 yearsCampbell, 2001 [25]
 Skills: Correct procedures listedFA training vs sham interventionScenario (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 yearsCampbell, 2001 [25]
  1. Mean ± SD (unless otherwise indicated), MD mean difference, RR risk ratio, OR odds ratio, RD risk difference
  2. aCalculations done by the reviewer using Revman, R software, or Excel
  3. bNo raw data available and CI cannot be calculated
  4. cImprecision (large variability of results)
  5. dImprecision (lack of data)
  6. eImprecision (limited sample size or low number of events)