IntroductionOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest is one of the leading causes of death in industrialised countries. Survival depends on prompt identification of cardiac arrest and on the quality and timing of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation. For laypeople, there has been a growing interest on hands-only CPR, meaning continuous chest compression without interruption to perform ventilations. It has been demonstrated that intentional interruptions in hands-only CPR can increase its quality. The aim of this randomised trial is to compare three CPR protocols performed with different intentional interruptions with hands-only CPR.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective randomised trial performed in eight training centres. Laypeople who passed a basic life support course will be randomised to one of the four CPR protocols in an 8 min simulated cardiac arrest scenario on a manikin: (1) 30 compressions and 2 s pause; (2) 50 compressions and 5 s pause; (3) 100 compressions and 10 s pause; (4) hands-only. The calculated sample size is 552 people. The primary outcome is the percentage of chest compression performed with correct depth evaluated by a computerised feedback system (Laerdal QCPR).Ethics and dissemination. Due to the nature of the study, we obtained a waiver from the Ethics Committee (IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy). All participants will sign an informed consent form before randomisation. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journal. The data collected will also be made available in a public data repository.Trial registration number NCT02632500.