ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Exploring enablers and barriers to the use of chest compression feedback devices in advanced life support: a qualitative study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn sudden cardiac arrest, high-quality chest compressions are crucial for survival with favorable neurological outcomes. Chest compression feedback devices improve chest compression quality and the likelihood of achieving return of spontaneous circulation. However, implementation remains challenging. Understanding enablers and barriers is essential to inform implementation strategies and device design.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interviews with 15 healthcare professionals from pre- and in-hospital advanced life support settings in Norway and Denmark. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns of meaning related to enablers and barriers to device use.
resultsData analysis led to the construction of four themes: (1) The CPR sensor-a key physical interaction point, where usability was shaped by ergonomics, as well as challenges related to sensor positioning and detachment. The sensor created a physical buffer that reduced the discomfort of feeling rib and sternum fractures and skin damage during compressions, helping providers maintain focus and perform compressions consistently. (2) Feedback-Device-to-rescuer communication, where visual feedback was preferred and considered informative, while audio feedback was often seen as disruptive and difficult to perceive during compressions. (3) Organizing cardiac arrest treatment, where team structure, leadership roles and protocol integration influenced device use. Clear assignment of responsibility and predefined equipment layout supported consistent use. (4) Perceived usefulness-an important enabling factor, where feedback was especially valued in supervisory roles, supporting clinical oversight and decision-making, leading to device integration into team workflows. In the pre-hospital setting, the device supported effective guidance for bystanders. The device's inability to provide physiological feedback raised questions about its future relevance.
conclusionsSuccessful implementation of chest compression feedback devices in advanced life support depends on user-centered design, role-sensitive feedback, and integration into clinical protocols. Key enablers included sensor ergonomics, visual feedback, and structured team roles, while barriers such as sensor detachment and disruptive audio feedback hindered sustained use. Future development should focus on multimodal feedback tailored to team functions and support physiology-guided resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.