Research ArticlesEvaluation of three smoke detector promotion programs
Section snippets
Minnesota
During 1990 and 1991, the Minnesota Department of Health’s Home Safety Checklist Program conducted home visits in the city of St. Paul, five rural communities, and two Indian reservations. Public health professionals performed walk-through inspections of homes of young children and older adults to identify and correct potential injury hazards, including testing every smoke detector. Detectors and batteries were replaced or installed, as needed. Of the 1,300 homes visited, 338 (26%) received a
Results
Evaluation visits were attempted to 641 addresses, and 436 interviews were completed. Seventy-one (11%) of the sampled addresses were ineligible because they were not residential households (e.g., dwelling was unoccupied), and one household was ineligible because no one in the home spoke English (Table 1 ). At least three homes had been destroyed by fire. Response rates (number of completed interviews/[number of addresses sampled minus number of ineligible addresses])20 ranged from 72% to 82%.
Discussion
This evaluation is one of the first to examine the long-term functional status of detectors distributed by detector promotion programs. It was conducted in both urban and rural sites, with participation rates of 72% to 82%. These rates support the practicality of unannounced home visits to evaluate programs to prevent home injuries in high-risk groups.
In total, the three programs distributed detectors to 10,331 households that reported not having a working\/ detector; 7,934 (77%) were delivered
Acknowledgements
The evaluation was designed, home visits were conducted, and the questionnaire data were electronically coded under a contract with Battelle’s Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation. The authors acknowledge Michael T. Halpern, MD, PhD, MPH, Peter McMenamin, PhD, Ruth Brown, MS, MSPA, and Leticia Howland, all formerly of Battelle, for their contributions. The authors also thank Pauline Harvey, MSPH, of NCIPC for assisting with data management, and Dana Loomis, PhD, and Carol Runyan,
References (21)
- et al.
Fire fatalities among New Mexico children
Ann Emerg Med
(1993) - National Center for Health Statistics. Public use data tape documentation. Compressed Mortality File, 1994....
- Karter MJ. NFPA’s latest fire loss figures. Natl Fire Protection Assoc J...
- National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Injury mortality: national summary of injury mortality data:...
- Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fire in the United States:1983–1990 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Fire Data...
- Hall JR. The U.S. experience with smoke detectors and other fire detectors: Who has them? How well do they work? When...
- et al.
Risk factors for fatal residential fires
N Engl J Med
(1992) - et al.
Residential smoke detector performance in the U.S
Int J Consumer Safety
(1994) - et al.
Prevalence of smoke detectors and safe tap-water temperatures among welfare recipients in Memphis, Tennessee
J Commun Health
(1992) - Kulenkamp A, Lundquist B, Schaenman P. Reaching the hard to reach: techniques from fire prevention programs and other...
Cited by (38)
Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: An economic evaluation
2012, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :The present study assumed that a baseline of 40% (low: 20%, high: 70%) of the homes did not have functional alarms based on a systematic review3 of published studies since 1990. Through a structured literature search (conducted in 2011; Appendix B, available online at www.ajpmonline.org), eight controlled trial studies10,14,22–27 were identified made up of evaluations of four giveaway and six installation programs since 1998. Five studies10,14,23–25 showed short-term (6–15 months) effectiveness.
The interaction between design and occupier behaviour in the safety of new homes
2007, Accident Analysis and PreventionCitation Excerpt :For example, the installation of smoke alarms in properties requires the occupants to check and maintain these safety devices in order for them to be an effective protection measure. Shults et al. (1998) also highlighted the importance of this behavioural component in an evaluation of three smoke detector promotion programs. They found that in 26% of households with non-working detectors, residents reported that they had forgotten to replace the battery.
Fire safety among the elderly in Western Australia
2006, Fire Safety JournalA cost analysis of a smoke alarm installation and fire safety education program
2006, Journal of Safety ResearchCarbon monoxide-related deaths in a metropolitan county in the USA: An 11-year study
2005, Forensic Science InternationalLessons Learned from an Emergency Medical Services Fire Safety Intervention
2004, Prehospital Emergency Care