Our study demonstrates a correlation between a person’s level of self-efficacy and their ability to use the knowledge gained in the Stop the Bleed course. This was a test of correlation and not causation. We were unable to test if one of our participants were in a massive bleeding situation, they would jump into action to help save a life. We can say there is a correlation.

   

In line with the hypothesis, we found the correlation to be positive, as the level of self-efficacy went up, the more likely they would use the knowledge gained in the Stop the Bleed course. Although the statistical results showed our hypothesis to be significant, it was a weak correlation. We expected the correlation to be stronger. These results build on the existing evidence of a correlation between confidence and action (Stroben et al., 2016). This is significant because there have been more massive bleed situations in recent years and people have died as a result of it (https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/). Some people died because they lost too much blood and the ones around them weren't properly equipped with the knowledge to help. Our research and other research shows there is a positive correlation between self-efficacy and knowledge gained, which has the potential to lower mortality rates in a massive bleed situation.

     

The generalizability of our results is limited by the methodological choices employed throughout the study. The lack of strength in this correlation could be that there was only one training session. Our participants sat in on a 45-minute training then participated in a hands-on session that lasted about 15 minutes and took a survey shortly after. In the study from Stroben et al., 2016, they conducted their training over a course of five days. The more an individual does an action the more confident that person becomes at doing that action as research suggested in the Stroben et al., 2016 article.

     

Future research should take into account repetition as an effective learning technique. In a study conducted using Kolby’s learning style inventory, results showed the group exposed to intentional repetition technique produced significantly better interaction than the control group (Topçu, 2008). If we were to do this study again, and if the study was done over a duration of days (rather than a 1 hour session), the likelihood that correlation between self-efficacy and the ability to use the knowledge gained would be stronger.

   

Further research is needed to establish the expectation of what will be learned in class and what will actually be taught. We trained first level speech students who did not have the expectation of learning about a medical concept. A new research question could be, does what is expected to be learned and what is taught have an effect on self-efficacy and knowledge gained?

     

Our study also tested the correlation between the anticipation of a mass casualty situation happening and scores on the BCON posttest. The results indicated there was a weak correlation which is of no significance. Therefore, we conclude there was no correlation between anticipation and scores on the posttest. 

     

The results of our study did not support our hypothesis and they contradicted the claims of Glanz and Schwartz (2008) “According to the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, appraisals of personal risk and threat severity prompt efforts to cope with the stressor.” Our team thought if a person had high levels of anticipation of a mass casualty and received training to possibly save themselves and others, there would be earnest learning involved and they would score high on the BCON posttest. One explanation for our hypothesis not being supported was, we didn't measure the reason for anticipation. In other words, we did not ask the participants why they had levels of anticipation of a mass causality event happening. There could be a number of reasons which would not relate to scoring high on a knowledge test. 

   

Our findings were different from Glanz and Schwartz (2008) possibly because they tested personal risk and we tested mass casualty. In a mass casualty situation, there is a probability that a person may not be a victim. Testing personal risk brings that probability up to likely happening to an individual opposed to not likely happening to that person. If a person identifies with, there may be a threat but the likelihood of me being a victim of mass bleeding or needing to help someone with mass bleeding is low, that person may not score higher on a knowledge test because they can perceive it is not urgently needed.

     

These results provide new insight into the relationship between anticipation and gaining knowledge to help ease that anticipation or being prepared for a situation in case it may happen. We think new studies can be conducted that would test personal risk in a mass casualty situation. The anticipation might be less depending on how the person identifies themselves in such a situation. 

     

It is beyond the scope of this study to test why a person scores higher on a test than not. There could be several reasons why, someone is studious, wants to go into medicine, the presentation was well put together and it facilitated high learning, an individual could have previous experience or knowledge of the subject in some way, the list goes on. Further studies should take into account the reasons people anticipate what they anticipate and what is the driving force that would cause someone to be prepared for something that may or may not happen.

   

 Overall, there is a good possibility that a person with high self-efficacy will use the knowledge gained in a mass casualty situation to save their life or someone else’s life. As more and more people receive training for such an event, we can be careful to say fewer lives will be lost because there will be people on the scene that will know what to do until professional help arrives. Understanding why someone anticipates a mass casualty event will help develop better training strategies for future training. This is awareness and training that is good to be knowledgeable and trained on in hopes that you may never have to use it.