Intervention studies measuring fire and burn prevention behaviors
| Intervention | Country (population) | Study design | Subjects (intervention group) | Subjects (control group) | Data sources | Outcomes measured | Results (control group or before) | Results (intervention group or after) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notes: E-quasi = quasiexperimental design; E-RCT = randomized controlled study. | |||||||||
| Fire response training | USA (city: school) | E-RCT | External method (passive) n=16, v self instruction (active) n=16 | n=16 | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | Both methods effective; self>external | 31 | |
| Schoolchildren | USA (city: school) | E-RCT | Elaborative (n=16) or behavioral rehearsal (n=16) | n=14 | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | 4% increase in specific skills | 96–8% increase in specific skills | 34 |
| USA (city: school) | E-RCT | Grade 2–4 students: with/without rationale and behavioral or verbal practice (n=15,15) | Grade 2–4 students: with/without rationale and behavioral or verbal practice (n=15,15) | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | Near 0% correct | 95% correct | 33 | |
| USA (town: school) | E-RCT | Grade 2 and 3 students: with fear reduction techniques (n=12,12) | Grade 2 and 3 students: with/without fire safety session (n=12,12) | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | 11% (both control groups) | Fear reduction group 98%; fire safety group 96% | 30 | |
| USA (city: school) | E-quasi | Grade 3–4 students (n=8) | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses (mean score, max=6) | Near 0 | 5–6 | 36 | |
| USA (city: class) | Cohort, prospective | Grade 3 children (n=5) | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | 4.5% correct | 74.4% correct | 35 | |
| Preschool children | USA (city: classes) | Cohort, prospective | Preschool children | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses (mean score, max=4) | 0.23 | 2.73 | 32 |
| Blind adolescents | USA (city: school) | Cohort, prospective | Blind adolescents (n=4) | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses (mean correct) | Near 0% correct | 3 of 4 subjects: 100% mastery, and 82%–100% at 4 months | 37 |
| USA (city: school) | Cohort, prospective | Blind adolescents (n=8) | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses (mean correct) | 45% correct | 100% correct | 38 | |
| Mentally retarded children | USA (city: group home) | Cohort, prospective | Moderate to severely mentally retarded children (n=4) | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | Near 0% correct | 72% correct | 41 |
| Mentally retarded adults | USA | Cohort, prospective | Mentally retarded adults | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | Zero at baseline | 100% mastery, and 74–100% at 5–8 month follow up | 42 |
| New Zealand (city: group homes) | Cohort, prospective | Mild to moderate mentally retarded adults | Multiple baseline assessments | Direct behavioral assessment | Fire situation responses | Near 0% correct | Most achieved mastery, maintained for 6–18 weeks | 28 | |
| USA (city: group home) | Cohort, prospective | Profoundly mentally retarded adults in group home (n=10) | No control group | Direct behavioral assessment | Safe exit (mean time)Safe exit (physical prompts required) | 85 seconds57% | 24 seconds7% | 43 | |
| USA (city: institution) | Cohort, prospective | Insitutionalized mentally retarded adults | No control group | Direct behavioral assessment | Safe exit (timed) | 0 | 49% | 39 | |
| USA (city: institution) | Case report | Blind male adult with Down's syndrome | No control group | Direct behavioral assessment | Safe exit (timed) | 5–7 minutes | <1 minute | 41 | |
| Office counselling | USA (city: clinic) | E-RCT | Parents of 6 month old children attending well child clinic (n=85) | Parents of 6 month old children attending well child clinic (n=86) | Home inspection | Matches accessible (%) | 9 | 7 | 45 |
| With free safety devices | USA (city: clinic) | E-RCT | Mothers with preschool children attending a clinic | Mothers with preschool children attending a clinic | Home inspection | Matches/lighters lying around the house | 3.7 | 3.6 | 44 |
| Education programs | USA (city) | Cohort, prospective | Head of all new families moving into public housing | Existing residents, untrained | Fire reports | Incidence of fires | One fire for every 780 renter months | One fire for every 4312 renter months | 27 |
| New Zealand (country: schools) | Cohort, prospective | Subset of 62 (1992) and 100 (1995) children for skill demonstration | No control group | Direct behavioral assessment | Mastery of fire situation responses (3 situations) | 47%–84% | 46%–95% | 19 | |