Table 4.
Comparison of number of positive responsesa between CC + MMV and CC + PMVb
| If the victim is | CC + MMV | CC + PMV | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A family member | 201 (99.0%) | 202 (99.5%) | 1.0 |
| A close friend | 186 (91.6%) | 202 (99.5%) | < 0.001 |
| A stranger of different gender | 91 (44.8%) | 189 (93.1%) | < 0.001 |
| A stranger of different race | 104 (51.2%) | 187 (92.1%) | < 0.001 |
| A stranger of different gender and race | 76 (37.4%) | 177 (87.2%) | < 0.001 |
| A stranger sustaining facial trauma | 34 (16.7%) | 141 (69.5%) | < 0.001 |
| A stranger who is a child | 149 (73.4%) | 195 (98.1%) | < 0.001 |
| A stranger who is elderly | 108 (53.2%) | 183 (90.1%) | < 0.001 |
| An unkempt stranger | 13 (6.4%) | 103 (50.7%) | < 0.001 |
| A person with whom you have a personal dispute | 108 (53.2%) | 167 (82.3%) | < 0.001 |
aPositive responses are recoded from the variables “definitely yes” and “probably yes”
bThe McNemar test was used for the analysis of these two dependent categorical variables
CC + MMV chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth ventilation, CC + PMV chest compressions and mask-to-mouth ventilation