Willingness of male homosexuals to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation

Background: Providing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (MMR) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a proven effective lifesaving procedure. However, the perceived risk to the rescuer of contracting infectious diseases, especially acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), by performing MMR on a possibly human immmunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive individual is probably affecting the number of people willing to perform MMR. Physicians and nurses constitute a major part of citizen cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) responders and serve as CPR educators and resource personnel. Currently, the fear of physicians and nurses of contracting infectious disease has dampened their willingness to perform MMR, and thus has reduced the number of strangers who will receive MMR. Homosexual males, like the medical community, have an increased perceived risk of acquiring infectious diseases, especially AIDS, and have been the target of intense educational efforts concerning the transmission of HIV. By (a) determining the willingness of various groups to perform MMR, (b) elucidating the factors which affect their willingness to perform MMR, and (c) comparing this willingness to the actual, not perceived, risk of acquiring HIV by performing MMR, either appropriate changes can be made to educate people in the performance of MMR, by informing them of the actual risks of contracting infectious diseases, or alternative methods of resuscitation, involving ‘lay-on’ masks, can be recommended. Thus the willingness of homosexual males to perform MMR was determined and compared to the previously determined actual reluctance of the medical community to perform MMR in similar hypothetical scenarios. Methods: During interviews, 200 male homosexuals in Los Angeles were asked to assume that they knew how to perform CPR and MMR and to indicate how they would respond to four hypothetical cardiac arrest scenarios. These scenarios included cardiac arrests of a child, a trauma victim, a young man in a gay neighbourhood, and a victim of unknown history. Demographical data concerning the respondents was also obtained. Results: Of the homosexual men surveyed, 93 and 85% stated they would perform MMR on a stranger of unknown history, if they, the rescuer, were HIV negative or positive, respectively, (P < 0.001). Similarly, a high percentage of the presumed HIV negative and HIV positive respondents stated a high willingness to perform MMR in response to hypothetical cardiac arrest scenarios involving a trauma victim, a child, and a young man in a gay neighbourhood. Conclusions: The willingness of male homosexuals to perform MMR is high, in contrast to the general reluctance of internists and medical nurses to perform MMR in the same outpatient scenarios. The different perceived risks of male homosexuals and physicians acquiring infectious diseases by performing MMR is probably responsible for the difference in willingness of these two groups to perform MMR. The high perceived risk of acquiring infectious diseases due to performance of MMR currently held by physicians in general may be lowered by increasing educational efforts. CPR courses should (a) discuss actual and perceived risks of acquiring infectious diseases by MMR, (b) discuss and weigh a small, and possibly not valid, risk of contracting an infectious disease while performing MMR on a victim, and (c) emphasize techniques involving ‘lay-on’ barrier masks. The availability of effective ‘lay-on’ barrier masks' should also be increased.