Table 1

Summary of randomised controlled trials of interventions to promote smoke alarms

Trial, year (country)

Study population

Randomisation method

Allocation concealment

Outcomes assessment blinded

Loss to follow up

Intervention1-150

Outcomes assessment

Thomas et al, 198444 (USA)

16 well baby classes (55 parents)

Coin toss

Not stated

Total: 0%

I: Burn prevention lecture, pamphlets, handouts, coupon for alarm; usual safety education

Home inspection 4–6 wk after class

C: Usual safety education

Kelly et al, 198733 (USA)

171 parents of 6 mth old children seen for well child care

Not stated

Yes

I: 35%

I: Developmentally oriented child safety education, hazard assessment, and handout, at 6, 9, 12 mth visits; usual well child care

Home inspection, medical chart review 1 mth after 12 month visit

C: 37%

C: Usual well child care

Davis, 198731 (USA)

41 grade 4–6 classes (861 children)

Not stated

I: 1%

I: 6 one hour fire safety lessons with workbook, demonstrations; teacher training, materials; take home materials for parents

In school survey immediately after last class

C: 0%

C: Usual lessons

Williams, 198845 (USA)

12 prenatal classes (165 pregnant women)

Random numbers table

Adequate

55% of women attending randomly allocated classes did not enrol in trial

I: One hour lecture, handouts on burn prevention; motor vehicle safety education and video; usual safety education

Home inspection 2–4 wk after live birth

C: One hour lecture, handouts and video on infant stimulation, feeding; usual safety education

Barone, 198828(USA)

5 parenting classes (108 parents of toddlers)

Coin toss, within paired classes

Inadequate

27% of parents attending randomly allocated classes did not enrol in trial

I: Slides, handouts on burn prevention; motor vehicle safety education and video; bath water thermometer; hot water gauge; usual safety education

Home inspection 6 mth after class

C: Usual safety education

Mathews, 198836 (USA)

26 mothers of toddlers recruited from clinics, day care centres

18 by random numbers table; 8 by alternation

Inadequate

Not stated

Total: 8%

I: Home safety inspection, video, handouts, modelling re: safety and managing dangerous child behaviour; hot water thermometers; choke tube

Home inspection 2 wk after home visit

C: Home visit with video, handouts, modelling on language stimulation

Ploeg et al, 199450 (Canada)1-151

359 public health clients aged 65+ y

Random numbers table

Adequate

Yes

I: 1%

I: Home safety inspection, safety promotion

Telephone survey 2–3 mth after home visit

C: 7%

C: Home visit for influenza vaccine promotion

Jenkins et al, 199647 (Canada)1-151

141 families of children <17 y in burn unit

Random numbers table

Adequate

Yes

Total: 13%

I: Discharge teaching book about burn care and prevention; routine discharge teaching

Interview in clinic at first follow up visit

C: Routine discharge teaching

Clamp and Kendrick, 199830 (UK)1-151

165 families of children <5 y on GP list

Random numbers table

Adequate

Total: 0%

I: Safety advice by health visitors and practice nurses, leaflets, discount safety devices for low income families

Telephone/mail survey 6 wk after visit

C: Usual care

Klassen et al, 199848 (Canada)1-151

1172 families of children aged <8 y hospitalised for injuries

Sealed, opaque envelopes drawn from opaque bag

Adequate

Yes

I: 20%

I: Home safety inspection, education, safety device coupons; reinforcement at 4 and 8 mth

Home inspection at 1 y follow up

C: 18%

C: Home safety inspection only

Kendricket al, 199924 (UK)1-151

36 general practices (2052 registered children 3–13 mth)

Random numbers table

Adequate

Survey: I: 67%

I: Safety advice by health visitors and practice nurses, literature, discount safety devices for low income families, home safety checks and first aid training by health visitors

Record review for injuries; telephone survey of safety practices at 25 mth follow up

C: 64%

C: Usual care

Smithson and Mullan, 199851(UK)1-151 (in progress)

8 paired areas in 4 deprived communities (∼240 families of children ⩽2 y/area)

Coin toss, within pairs

Not stated

(Prelim. results from 1 pair): I: 30% (excluded families not completing intervention)

I: Home visits every 2 mth for 2 y by trained lay worker, teaching child development, safety, first aid; low cost safety devices; home safety inspection

Home inspection, survey at 2 years; alarms (preliminary—1 pair): 287/312 (92%) v271/302 (90%)

C: 11%

C: Home safety inspection

Gielenet al, 199846 (USA)
(in progress)

32 doctors in training (196 families of children 0–6 mth)

Random numbers table

Adequate

Yes

Total: 31% of families

I: 5 hours of special training in injury prevention counselling

Home inspection, interview after 12 mth well child visit

C: Usual training

↵1-150 I, intervention; C, control.
↵1-151 Unpublished data provided by investigators.