The home environment: prevention of burns and scalds
| Author, date, and country | Injury target group and setting | Aims and content of intervention | Study type and sample size | Outcome measures | Key results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C = control; I = intervention. | |||||
| Mallonee et al (1996),5 USA | Total population. Low income. High risk groups. Home setting | Smoke alarm giveaway programme. Door to door distribution and supporting educational material | Controlled trial without randomisation I=73 301 in 24 square mile area C=rest of Oklahoma | (A) Mortality and morbidity data. (B) Observed behaviour | (A) In 4 years annual injury rate declined 80%, from 15.3 to 3.1/100 000 compared to an increase of 8% 3.6 in I to 3.9/100 000 in C Injury rate per 100 residential fires decreased 74% in I and increased 32% in C (B) 45% of alarms still functioning 4 years later EffectiveGood/reasonable evidence |
| McConnell et al (1996),6 USA | 3–5 years attending child care centres | “Kid Safe” program To increase fire safety knowledge by a classroom programme. 30 hours over 18 weeks including role play and simulation | Controlled trial with random allocation at group level I=6 child care centres C=4 child care centres | Pre-test and post-test Knowledge scores of children aged 3,4 and 5 years | 3 year old children: knowledge scores increased by 30.2 in I, and 10 in C 4 year old children: scores increased by 22 in I and 12 in C 5 year old children: scores increased 20.9 in I and 7.3 in C EffectiveGood/reasonable evidence |
| Shults et al (1998),7 USA | General population. Older adults and children under 5. Home setting | 3 smoke detector promotion programmes: I1 Home inspections and installation of detectors, I2 Detectors distributed and installed to households requesting them, I3 Oklahoma—door to door distribution (<10% installed) | Before and after studies to 3 different groups: I1=338 Minnesota, I2=702 North Carolina, I3=9291 Oklahoma | Observed behaviour Reported behaviour | Overall 88% of households had at least one smoke detector on premises and 64% at least one functioning device. Battery replaced as part of follow up: 79% I1, 93% I2, 73% I3 had functioning detectors at end of follow up Partially effectiveReasonable evidence |
| DiGuiseppi et al (1999),8 UK | General population. Deprived communities. Home setting | Smoke detector giveaway campaign and fire safety information | Randomised controlled trial I=20 inner city wards (approx 80 000 households) C=20 inner city wards | (A) Alarm distribution (B) Process and impact measures | (A) 20 050 alarms distributed. (B) Programme cost: £145 087 EffectiveGood/reasonable evidence (Preliminary results only reported) |
| King et al (1999),9 Australia | 0–4 years. Vietnamese, Chinese, and Arabic families. Mass media | Mass media campaign. Information distributed via newspapers and radio. In appropriate languages | Before and after study without control group. Before: 254 After: 302 | (A) Knowledge (B) Impact | (A) Knowledge of correct first aid increased from 42% before to 63%. (B) 40% aware of the campaign Partially effectiveReasonable evidence |