본 연구는 일반인이 쉽게 접근할 수 있는 적절한 심폐소생술 교육 프로그램 방법을 적용함에 있어 최근 대두되고 있는 스마트폰의 심폐소생술 어플의 교육 효과를 비교 분석하고자 시도되었다.

본 실험은 2012년 5월 19일부터 20일까지 2일 간 ‘국가재난안전센터’ 어플의 애니메이션으로 학습한 대조군과 ‘Pocket CPR’이라는 측정 어플을 변형된 방법으로 학습한 실험군으로 나뉘어 실시되었다. 대조군과 실험군은 각각 교육 전과 교육 후에 심폐소생술에 대한 태도, 구체적 자기효능감, 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines을 기준으로 구성된 실기평가표에 의한 심폐소생술 수행도, 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines이 적용된 Laerdal사의 PC SkillReporting System으로 출력된 결과인 정확도(인공호흡, 가슴압박, 평균 ‘가슴압박중단 시간’)가 평가되었다.
자료분석은 SPSS/PC+(version 18.0)을 이용하여 빈도와 백분율, t-test, Fisher''s Exact test, t-test, paired t-test로 분석하였다.

본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다.

1) 가설 1. “심폐소생술에 대한 교육 전-후의 태도는 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=.756, p=.455). 그러나 두 군 모두 교육후 심폐소생술에 대한 태도가 유의하게 향상되었다.
2) 가설 2. “심폐소생술에 대한 교육 전-후의 구체적 자기효능감은 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=-.033, p=.974). 그러나 두 군 모두 교육후 심폐소생술에 대한 구체적 자기효능감이 유의하게 향상되었다.
3) 가설 3-1. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 의식확인 및 신고 수행도는 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=-.143, p=.888). 그러나 두 군 모두 교육후 심폐소생술 의식확인 및 신고 수행도가 유의하게 향상되었다.
4) 가설 3-2. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 가슴압박 수행도는 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=1.248, p=.223). 그러나 두 군 모두 교육후 심폐소생술 가슴압박 수행도가 유의하게 향상되었다.
5) 가설 3-3. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 인공호흡 수행도는 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=.601, p=.553). 그러나 두 군 모두 교육후 심폐소생술 인공호흡 수행도가 유의하게 향상되었다.
6) 가설 4-1. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 인공호흡 정확도는 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=.430, p=.670).
7) 가설 4-2-1. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 가슴압박 깊이정확도는 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=-.1493, p=.148). 그러나 교육후 심폐소생술 가슴압박 깊이정확도는 실험군에서 유의하게 향상되었다.
8) 가설 4-2-2. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 가슴압박 위치정확도는 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=1.257, p=.218). 그러나 교육후 심폐소생술 가슴압박 위치정확도는 대조군에서 유의하게 향상되었다.
9) 가설 4-2-3. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 가슴압박 이완정확도는 대조군과 실험군간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=.175, p=.862).
10) 가설 4-3. “심폐소생술 교육 전-후의 평균 ‘가슴압박중단 시간’은 대조군과 실험군 간에 차이가 있을 것이다.”는 기각되었다(t=.457, p=.650). 그러나 교육후 심폐소생술 평균 ‘가슴압박중단 시간’은 실험군에서 유의하게 감소하였다.

이상의 결과를 살펴볼 때 심폐소생술 어플인 대조군과 실험군 사이에 교육 전과 후의 변화량에서는 차이가 없으나, 두 군 모두 교육 후 심폐소생술에 대한 태도, 구체적 자기효능감, 수행도가 향상되었다. 특히 정확도에서는 실험군은 가슴압박 깊이정확도에서, 대조군은 가슴압박 위치정확도에서 유의한 교육효과가 있었다.
따라서, 스마트폰 어플에 의한 심폐소생술 교육을 적시적소에 활용하되, 애니메이션과 측정 어플의 장점을 활용하고 단점을 보완한 교육을 하면 일반인이 쉽게 접근할 수 있는 심폐소생술 교육을 실시하는데 기여할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

Objective: This study tried to compare and analyze the educational effects of cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) applications on Smart-phone when applying the most optimal CPR educational program that general public could access easily.

Methods: The experiment was performed for two days between May 19 and May 20, 2012. The control group learned through the animation of ‘National Disaster & Safety Center’ application, while the experimental group learned a measurement application named ‘Pocket CPR’ in a modified way. For each of the control and experimental groups, before and after education, this study evaluated their attitudes about CPR, specific self-efficacy, performance by Skills Checklist based on 2010 AHA Guidelines, and accuracy
(artificial respiration, chest compression, average ‘hands-off time’) as printed results of PC Skill Reporting System by Laerdal to which 2010 AHA Guidelines were applied.
Collected materials were analyzed by SPSS/PC+(version 18.0). Frequency and percentage were calculated and X2-test, Fisher''s Exact test, t-test, and paired t-test were performed.

Results:
1) Hypothesis 1 as in “Attitudes about CPR before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=.756, p=.455). However, for both groups after education, their attitudes about CPR were significantly improved.
2) Hypothesis 2 as in “Specific self-efficacy about CPR before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=-.033, p=.974). However, for both groups after education, their specific self-efficacy about CPR was significantly improved.
3) Hypothesis 3-1 as in “Check responsive and call for help performance before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=-.143, p=.888). However, for both groups after education check responsive and call for help performance were significantly improved.
4) Hypothesis 3-2 as in “Chest compression performance before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=1.248, p=.223). However, for both groups after education chest compression performance was significantly improved.
5) Hypothesis 3-3 as in “Artificial respiration performance before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=.601, p=.553). However, for both groups after education artificial respiration performance was significantly improved.
6) Hypothesis 4-1 as in “The accuracy of artificial respiration before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=.430, p=.670).
7) Hypothesis 4-2-1 as in “The accuracy of chest compressions depth before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=-.1493, p=.148). However, for the experimental group after education the accuracy of chest compression depth was significantly improved.
8) Hypothesis 4-2-2 as in “The accuracy of chest compressions location before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=1.257, p=.218). However, for the control group after education the accuracy of chest compression location was significantly improved.
9) Hypothesis 4-2-3 as in “The accuracy of chest compressions release before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=.175, p=.862).
10) Hypothesis 4-3 as in “Average ‘hands-off time’ before and after CPR education there will be a difference between the control group and the experimental group” was rejected (t=.457, p=.650). However, for the experimental group after education the average ‘hands-off time’ was significantly decreased.

Conclusion: From the above results, it was found that CPR applications did not make any difference in changes before and after education in both the control group and the experimental group. However, both groups showed improved attitudes, specific self-efficacy, and performance on CPR after the education. In particular, accuracy showed in the case of the experimental group showed significant increase in the accuracy of chest compression depth, and in the case of the control group showed significant increase in the accuracy of chest compression location. Thus, the education taking advantage of animation and measurement application could contribute to CPR education that general public could access easily.