Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Cost effectiveness analysis of a smoke alarm giveaway program in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  1. A C Haddix1,
  2. S Mallonee2,
  3. R Waxweiler3,
  4. M R Douglas2
  1. 1Department of International Health, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  2. 2Injury Prevention Service, Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  3. 3National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr Anne C Haddix, Department of International Health, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
 Reprint requests to: Sue Mallonee, Injury Prevention Service-0307, Oklahoma State Department of Health, 1000 NE 10th St, Oklahoma City, OK 73117–1299,USA Suem{at}


Objective—To estimate the cost effectiveness of the Lifesavers Residential Fire and Injury Prevention Program (LRFIPP), a smoke alarm giveaway program.

Setting—In 1990, the LRFIPP distributed over 10 000 smoke alarms in an area of Oklahoma City at high risk for residential fire injuries. The program also included fire prevention education and battery replacement components.

Methods—A cost effectiveness analysis was conducted from the societal and health care systems perspectives. The study compared program costs with the total costs of medical treatment and productivity losses averted over a five year period. Fatal and non-fatal residential fire related injuries prevented were estimated from surveillance data. Medical costs were obtained from chart reviews of patients with fire related injuries that occurred during the pre-intervention period.

Results—During the five years post-intervention, it is estimated that the LRFIPP prevented 20 fatal and 24 non-fatal injuries. From the societal perspective, the total discounted cost of the program was $531 000. Total discounted net savings exceeded $15 million. From the health care system perspective, the total discounted net savings were almost $1 million and would have a net saving even if program effectiveness was reduced by 64%.

Conclusions—The program was effective in reducing fatal and non-fatal residential fire related injuries and was cost saving. Similar programs in other high risk areas would be good investments even if program effectiveness was lower than that achieved by the LRFIPP.

  • cost effectiveness
  • fires
  • burns
  • smoke alarms

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.