Who Did We Study?
For the duration of this study, we examined college level students enrolled in Communication 1010 or Communication 3250. At Wayne State University, this course is the introductory level class that sets the foundation for higher level courses within the discipline.
What Did We Do?
In our study, we interviewed 92 students in the communication courses stated above at Wayne State University. We conducted different tests to infer how well the students could retain information from Stop the Bleed. We first provided them with a pretest that consisted of a survey to measure what, if any, knowledge they had on the Stop The Bleed course subject matter, and to measure their personal feelings towards emergency situations. A few weeks later, Stop The Bleed instructors came into the classes and taught the students the full course. Immediately after the training, the students took a post test to recall the information that was taught to them, and six weeks later, another survey was sent out to measure how much information the students had retained.
What Variables Did We Look At?
Our team chose to take a closer look at self-efficacy and the effects of having high anticipation for an emergency situation. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in themselves to execute a certain task. Our group proposed that levels of self-efficacy would be related to the ability to use and apply knowledge gained in the Stop the Bleed course. We also proposed that people who anticipate emergencies are more likely to retain the information taught in the Stop the Bleed course. In order to measure the predictions stated above, we used a BCON (bleed control) posttest. The test was administered directly after the training. It measured a participant’s retention by way of a 10-question quiz where participants received 1 point for every correct answer. From there, their final scores were summed and aggregated to form their final assessment of bleed control knowledge.
Hypothesis #1
There will be a relationship between a person’s level of self-efficacy and their ability to use the knowledge gained in the Stop the Bleed course.
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in themselves to execute a certain task. Our group proposed that levels of self-efficacy would be related to the ability to use and apply knowledge gained in the Stop the Bleed course. Support for our hypothesis came from a research article that examined medical students’ self-efficacy levels and how they handled a simulated night shift in the emergency room. Directly following each simulation, researchers found a relationship between two variables: confidence and action. Specifically, it was discovered that “right after each case students feel confident in their actions and with how they handled the case (mean 0.95)” (Stroben et al., 2016, p. 4). Five days after the simulation study took place, participants were encouraged to take a follow up online survey. Sixty percent of the participants took the survey and the data showed “a significant increase in their general feeling of preparedness compared to before the simulation” (Stroben et al., 2016, p. 4). This data is helpful for our hypothesis because a relationship was shown between self-efficacy levels and feelings of preparedness. The more students were able to practice with hands on training, the more confident they felt in their ability to actually help out in a real medical situation. Interestingly, researchers found that a participant’s role (i.e., observer, team member or team leader) did not affect their level of self-efficacy. However, the different roles did “provide an opportunity for implementing multi-source peer feedback” (Stroben et al., 2016, p. 6). Similarly, students took on different roles (i.e., observer & team member) during the Stop the Bleed training. When utilizing the observer role, students learned how to apply a tourniquet. When they got to be an active team member, they had the chance to actually apply their knowledge and benefit from hands on training. Ultimately, the goal of Stop the Bleed is to increase feelings of confidence and preparedness to help during a mass bleed.
​
Results: Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a relationship between a person’s level of self-efficacy and their ability to use the knowledge gained in the Stop the Bleed course. The correlation between self-efficacy levels and behavioral intent were statistically significant, r (88) = .27, p = .005 (one-tailed). Our hypothesis was supported and therefore, there is a relationship between self-efficacy and an intent to use knowledge acquired in Stop the Bleed training.
Interpretation of results: In order for feelings of preparedness and confidence to increase, hands on training serves as best practice. During a Stop the Bleed training, participants have the opportunity to view a brief slide show, watch certified trainers properly apply a tourniquet and stuff a wound, receive hands on practice and guidance from certified trainers. At the end of the session, time is reserved for asking questions. One explanation for increased feelings of confidence and the ability to apply knowledge could be because of the real, hands on practice that participants receive during a STB training. Limitations of this research include our sample size. We had less than 100 total participants and therefore our results are not generalizable. To increase the reliability of our study, future research should consider examining a larger sample.
​
Hypothesis #2
People who anticipate a mass casualty to occur will score higher on the BCON posttest.
Our group wanted to test this hypothesis because we felt that the more anxious someone was, the more likely they would retain information after taking the Stop the Bleed course. Support for our hypothesis came from the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. Essentially, this model is a framework for evaluating ways of coping with stressful events. Lazarus and Choen, (1977, p. 251) explain that “Stressful experiences are construed as person-environment transactions, in which the impact of an external stressor, or demand, is mediated by a person’s appraisal of the stressor and the psychological, social, and cultural resources at his or her disposal.” What this means for our hypothesis is that, people’s mass casualty threat severity judgements serve as a “stressor,” that motivates them to “cope” by paying more attention to the Stop the Bleed training. Which in turn, should be reflected in a higher score on the BCON posttest. In addition, authors Glanz, and Schwartz, (2008, p. 253) point out that “According to the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, appraisals of personal risk and threat severity prompt efforts to cope with the stressor.” More so, efforts to cope with a stressor (in this case, mass casualty severity) depend on an individual’s perceived amount of personal risk. Basically, if someone feels threatened and uneasy, they are likely to read and gain knowledge on the particular topic that is making them feel that way. Similarly, a person who perceives a mass casualty as a severe threat is more likely to acquire empowering training and knowledge and score high on the posttest in an effort to reduce the stressor (i.e., mass casualties). With that said, we stand with our hypothesis that states individuals who perceive a mass casualty to be a severe threat are more likely to retain the information from the Stop the Bleed training.
Results: Hypothesis 2 predicted that individuals who scored high on the BCON posttest would report having high levels of anticipation of a mass casualty. The correlation between BCON posttest scores and levels of anticipation were weak, r (88) = -.12, p = .19 (one tailed). People who scored high on the BCON posttest did not report having high levels of anxiety/anticipation. Therefore, our hypothesis was not supported, and we had to retain the null; which states that there is no relationship among the variables.
​
Interpretation of results: Because of the heightened news coverage that takes place when a mass casualty occurs, our group was unable to tell if people scored high on the BCON posttest because they actually view a mass casualty as a severe threat or whether they just have an increased sense of awareness because of media coverage. In addition, something known as the “ceiling effect” could serve as another reason as to why our hypothesis was not supported. The ceiling effect alludes to the idea that because everyone just sat through the training and learned about hemorrhage control, they will score high on the posttest because they were actively listening and paying attention. We were unable to determine whether or not mass casualty anticipation had any effect on individual’s knowledge retention.
