Summary of non-randomised controlled evaluations of interventions to promote smoke alarms
| Study, year (country) | Intervention (I) and control (C) populations | Intervention | Assessment | Smoke alarms intervention | Smoke alarms control | Other outcomes: intervention | Other outcomes: control | |||||||
| Project Burn Prevention, 1979,38 198234 39 (USA) | I: 3 cities in east of state | I1: Mass media. I2: I1 + school programme. I3: I1+ community outreach | Population surveillance for ER injury visits, 4 y before to 12 mth after; telephone surveys | Not reported | Not reported | Adjusted burn incidence rate ratio, during v before: I1: 1.4 (1.1, 1.6); I2: 0.8 (0.5, 1.1); I3: 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) | Adjusted burn incidence rate ratio, duringv before: 1.0 (0.6, 1.5) | |||||||
| C: 2 cities in west of state (with lower baseline burn incidence) | C: No intervention | |||||||||||||
| Miller et al, 198240 (USA) | I: 120 consecutive parents of children seen for well care in middle class suburban practice | I: Pamphlet, brief education, discount alarms in office; usual well child care | Home inspection 4–6 weeks after intervention. Response rate: I: 108/120 (90%) | Owned: 79/108 (73%). Installed: 72/108 (67%). Functioning: 61/108 (56%) | Owned: 64/105 (61%). Installed: 64/105 (61%). Functioning: 46/105 (44%) | Not reported | Not reported | |||||||
| C: Preceding 120 consecutive, similar parents | C: Usual well child care | C: 105/120 (88%) | ||||||||||||
| LeBailly et al, 199049(USA) | 407 families with children <5 y seen for well child care in suburban practice or urban clinic, allocated sequentially in groups of ∼100 (differed on home ownership, socioeconomic status) | I1: Free alarm and other safety devices I2: Free alarm and other safety devices, injury prevention counselling I3: Injury prevention counselling | Non-blinded home interviews and inspections 9 mth after intervention. Response rate: ∼75% | Owned: I1: 100%; I2: 99%; I3: 92% (numerators, denominators not reported) | Owned: 96% (numerators, denominators not reported) | Not collected | Not collected | |||||||
| C: Usual well child care | ||||||||||||||
| SCIPP, 198932; Basset al, 199129 (USA)2-150 | I: 9 communities (total pop. 139 807) | I: Injury prevention programme in communities, schools, homes, and clinical settings | Population injury surveillance 1 y before to 2 mth after. Phone survey response: pre, 59%, post, 85% (similar in 2 groups) | Owned: 418/508 (82.3%). Change: +9.4% | Owned: 339/409 (83.9%). Change: +14.9% | Adjusted odds ratio for burns (duringv before), in interventionv control communities: OR = 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | ||||||||
| C: 5 demographically similar communities (total pop. 146 866) | C: No intervention | |||||||||||||
| Ozanne-Smithet al, 199442 (Australia) | I: Municipality | I: 3 y community injury prevention programme: mass media, education, training, promotion, and action for hazard reduction and environmental change | Population injury surveillance; telephone survey post-intervention of 250 randomly selected households each group | Installed: 166/248 (67%). Installed since programme began: 158/248 (64%) | Installed: 166/250 (66%). Installed since programme began: 156/248 (63%) | Data unavailable | Data unavailable | |||||||
| C: Demographically similar municipality (with higher baseline injury hospitalisation rate) | C: No intervention | |||||||||||||
| Schwarz et al, 199343 (USA)2-150 | I: 5 contiguous census tracts (3004 households (51%) participated) | I: Free alarms and installation; home inspection, education, modification; community education | Injury surveillance 2 y before to 1 y after; 1 y post-intervention inspection. Response rate: I: 902/1250 (72%) | Functioning: 866/902 (96%) Adjusted odds ratio: 0.14 (0.1, 0.2) | Functioning: 816/1060 (77%) | Fire related injuries/1000: before: 1.83; during: 1.14; after: 0.86 | Fire related injuries/1000: before: 1.34; during: 2.68; after: 1.11 | |||||||
| C: 4 bordering, contiguous census tracts (similar sociodemographics, baseline injury rates) | C: No intervention | C: 1060/1472 (72%) | Incidence change (afterv before): 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) | Incidence change (after v before): 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) | ||||||||||
| Mallonee et al, 199635(USA) | I: City area with highest risk of fire related hospitalisations and deaths | I: Door to door alarm give away, fire prevention brochures, limited alarm installation | Population fire and fire related injury surveillance 2.5 y before to 4 y after programme | Functioning at 4 y: 45% | Not collected | After v before: Fire related injuries/100k: 0.2 (0.1, 0.4). Fire related injuries/100 fires: 0.3 (0.1, 0.6). Fires/1000 homes: 0.75 (0.5, 1.1) | Afterv before: Fire related injuries/100k: 1.1 (0.7, 1.7). Fire related injuries/100 fires: 1.3 (0.9, 2.0). Fires/1000 homes: 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) | |||||||
| C: Rest of city | C: No intervention | |||||||||||||
| McConnell et al, 199637 (USA) | I: All 2350 new residents of subsidised housing | I: 35 min mandatory lecture and video on fire safety and prevention; reminder card | Population fire surveillance during 15 mth study period | Not collected | Not collected | 278 fires/100k person years. Relative risk (interventionv control): 0.18 (0.16, 0.21) | 1538 fires/100k person years | |||||||
| C: All existing residents (lower baseline fire risk, similar sociodemographics) | C: No intervention | |||||||||||||
| Centers for Disease Control (USA) (in progress) (n = 5) | (5 separate state projects): I: Within city block groups, town, or city | I: Installation of free smoke alarms in high risk households | Injury and fire surveillance; smoke alarm ownership and function | In progress | In progress | In progress | In progress | |||||||
| C: Comparison block groups, town, or city | C: Vouchers to redeem free smoke alarms for high risk households; installation on request | |||||||||||||
↵2-150 Unpublished data provided by investigators.