Spaced learning versus massed learning in resuscitation - A systematic review

Aim: Skill decay is a recognised problem in resuscitation training. Spaced learning has been proposed as an intervention to optimise resuscitation skill performance compared to traditional massed learning. A systematic review was performed to answer 'In learners taking resuscitation courses, does spaced learning compared to massed learning improve educational outcomes and clinical outcomes?'

Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched bibliographic databases (Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL)) from inception to 2 December 2019. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently scrutinized studies for relevance, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. Risk of bias of studies and quality of evidence were assessed using RoB, ROBINS-I tool and GRADEpro respectively. Educational outcomes studied were skill retention and performance 1 year after completion of training; skill performance between completion of training and 1 year; and knowledge at course conclusion. Clinical outcomes were skill performance at actual resuscitation, patient survival to discharge with favourable neurological outcome. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019150358).

Results: From 2,042 references, we included data from 17 studies (13 randomised studies, 4 cohort studies) in courses with manikins and simulation in the narrative synthesis. Eight studies reported results from basic life support training (with or without automatic external defibrillator); three studies reported from paediatric life support training; five were in neonatal resuscitation and one study reported results from a bespoke emergency medicine course which included resuscitation teaching. Fifteen out of seventeen studies reported improved performance with the use of spaced learning. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low for all outcomes primarily due to a very serious risk of bias. Heterogeneity across studies precluded any meta-analyses. There was a lack of data on the effectiveness of spaced learning on skill acquisition compared to maintaining skill performance and/or preventing skill decay. There was also insufficient data to examine the effectiveness of spaced learning on laypeople compared to healthcare providers.

Conclusions: Despite the very low certainty of evidence this systematic review suggests that spaced learning can improve skill performance at 1 year post course conclusion and skill performance between course conclusion and 1 year. There is a lack of data from this educational intervention on skill performance in clinical resuscitation and patient survival at discharge with favourable neurological outcomes.