Smoke alarm ownership and installation: a comparison of a rural and a suburban community in Georgia

When increasing risk perception does not work. Using behavioral psychology to increase smoke alarm ownership

The central question of our study is which determinants drive smoke alarm ownership and intention to purchase one, and whether we can increase smoke alarm ownership by addressing these determinants in a communication-based intervention. We first made an inventory of possible determinants for smoke alarm prevention by consulting prominent prevention behavior theories protection motivation theory and Health Belief Model and other relevant literature. We expanded this list of determinants based on interviews (n = 15) and used survey data representative for the Netherlands to decide to focus on smoke alarm ownership (rather than installation or maintenance). We then tested the determinants of smoke alarm ownership and buying intention in a survey (n = 622). Based on these results, we ran an A/B test (n = 310) of two messages to stimulate smoke alarm ownership: one emphasized the determinants we found to be strong predictors in the survey (know-how, social norm, annoyance) and one emphasized typical determinants that are often addressed in campaigns but were poor predictors in the survey (vulnerability, severity, benefits). Results showed that the message based on the strong determinants resulted in a significant increase in smoke alarm ownership (9.1%) compared to the control group (0.9%; p = 0.027), while the message using the typical determinants did not lead to significant effects. Taken together, our results give a promising direction for interventions to increase smoke alarm ownership, and above all, show that a comprehensive problem analysis for a specific target behavior is a necessary step to induce behavioral change.

Home Fire Safety Practices and Smoke Detector Program Awareness in an Urban Pediatric Emergency Department Population

OBJECTIVES

Risk factors for residential fire death (young age, minority race/ethnicity, and low socioeconomic status) are common among urban pediatric emergency department (ED) patients. Community-based resources are available in our region to provide free smoke detector installation. The objective of our study was to describe awareness of these resources and home fire safety practices in this vulnerable population.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a brief survey was administered to a convenience sample of caregivers accompanying patients 19 years of age or younger in an urban pediatric ED in Washington, DC. Survey contents focused on participant knowledge of available community-based resources and risk factors for residential fire injury.

RESULTS

Five hundred eleven eligible caregivers were approached, and 401 (78.5%) agreed to participate. Patients accompanying the caregivers were 48% male, 77% African American, and had a mean (SD) age of 6.5 (5.9) years. Of study participants, 256 (63.8%) lived with children younger than 5 years. When asked about available community-based resources for smoke detectors, 240 (59.9%) were unaware of these programs, 319 (79.6%) were interested in participating, and 221 (55.1%) enrolled. Presence of a home smoke detector was reported by 396 respondents (98.7%); however, 346 (86.3%) reported testing these less often than monthly. Two hundred fifty-six 256 (63.8%) lacked a carbon monoxide detector, and 202 (50.4%) had no fire escape plan. Sixty-five (16%) reported indoor smoking, and 92 (22.9%) reported space heater use.

CONCLUSIONS

In this urban pediatric ED population, there is limited awareness of community-based resources but high rates of interest in participating once informed. Whereas the self-reported prevalence of home smoke detectors is high in our study population, other fire safety practices are suboptimal.

Intervention study for changes in home fire safety knowledge in urban older adults

Older adults are more likely to experience problems that contribute to an increase in burn-related morbidity and mortality. The purpose of the current study was to determine if the educational home fire safety (HFS) intervention was an effective method of improving HFS knowledge over time in two groups of urban older adults, home bound and community-based. HFS knowledge of 110 urban older adults was assessed at baseline, immediately after watching a HFS DVD (recall), and at 2-week follow-up (retention). The United States Fire Administration Home Safety Checklist which examines HFS practices in the home was also administered. HFS knowledge scores significantly increased over time for both groups (p<0.0001), but no significant differences existed between the two groups over time (p=0.183). In addition, HFS knowledge scores were significantly impacted by the number of chronic illnesses, number of independent activities of daily living, and income. The findings from this study suggest the educational HFS intervention was effective in increasing urban older adults' HFS knowledge over time. Lowering the burns morbidity and mortality in the older adult population is an important public health concern that needs to be addressed through tailored prevention and education strategies.

Increasing smoke alarm operability through theory-based health education: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Although working smoke alarms halve deaths in residential fires, many households do not keep alarms operational. We tested whether theory-based education increases alarm operability.

METHODS

Randomised multiarm trial, with a single arm randomly selected for use each day, in low-income neighbourhoods in Maryland, USA. Intervention arms: (1) Full Education combining a health belief module with a social-cognitive theory module that provided hands-on practice installing alarm batteries and using the alarm's hush button; (2) Hands-on Practice social-cognitive module supplemented by typical fire department education; (3) Current Norm receiving typical fire department education only. Four hundred and thirty-six homes recruited through churches or by knocking on doors in 2005-2008. Follow-up visits checked alarm operability in 370 homes (85%) 1-3.5 years after installation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

number of homes with working alarms defined as alarms with working batteries or hard-wired and number of working alarms per home. Regressions controlled for alarm status preintervention; demographics and beliefs about fire risks and alarm effectiveness.

RESULTS

Homes in the Full Education and Practice arms were more likely to have a functioning smoke alarm at follow-up (OR=2.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.03) and had an average of 0.32 more working alarms per home (95% CI 0.09 to 0.56). Working alarms per home rose 16%. Full Education and Practice had similar effectiveness (p=0.97 on both outcome measures).

CONCLUSIONS

Without exceeding typical fire department installation time, installers can achieve greater smoke alarm operability. Hands-on practice is key. Two years after installation, for every three homes that received hands-on practice, one had an additional working alarm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00139126.

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention (Review)

BACKGROUND

In industrialised countries injuries (including burns, poisoning or drowning) are the leading cause of childhood death and steep social gradients exist in child injury mortality and morbidity. The majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home but there is little meta-analytic evidence that child home safety interventions reduce injury rates or improve a range of safety practices, and little evidence on their effect by social group.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness of home safety education, with or without the provision of low cost, discounted or free equipment (hereafter referred to as home safety interventions), in reducing child injury rates or increasing home safety practices and whether the effect varied by social group.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), CINAHL (EBSCO) and DARE (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library. We also searched websites and conference proceedings and searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and previously published reviews. We contacted authors of included studies as well as relevant organisations. The most recent search for trials was May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after (CBA) studies where home safety education with or without the provision of safety equipment was provided to those aged 19 years and under, and which reported injury, safety practices or possession of safety equipment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We attempted to obtain individual participant level data (IPD) for all included studies and summary data and IPD were simultaneously combined in meta-regressions by social and demographic variables. Pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated for injuries which occurred during the studies, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for the uptake of safety equipment or safety practices, with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies, involving 2,605,044 people, are included in this review. Fifty-four studies involving 812,705 people were comparable enough to be included in at least one meta-analysis. Thirty-five (65%) studies were RCTs. Nineteen (35%) of the studies included in the meta-analysis provided IPD. There was a lack of evidence that home safety interventions reduced rates of thermal injuries or poisoning. There was some evidence that interventions may reduce injury rates after adjusting CBA studies for baseline injury rates (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Greater reductions in injury rates were found for interventions delivered in the home (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91), and for those interventions not providing safety equipment (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92). Home safety interventions were effective in increasing the proportion of families with safe hot tap water temperatures (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.86), functional smoke alarms (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.52), a fire escape plan (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.77), storing medicines (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.84) and cleaning products (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.96) out of reach, having syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.44) or poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.39), having fitted stair gates (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.17), and having socket covers on unused sockets (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.96). Interventions providing free, low cost or discounted safety equipment appeared to be more effective in improving some safety practices than those interventions not doing so. There was no consistent evidence that interventions were less effective in families whose children were at greater risk of injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home safety interventions most commonly provided as one-to-one, face-to-face education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, are effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is some evidence that such interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly where interventions are provided at home. Conflicting findings regarding interventions providing safety equipment on safety practices and injury outcomes are likely to be explained by two large studies; one clinic-based study provided equipment but did not reduce injury rates and one school-based study did not provide equipment but did demonstrate a significant reduction in injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment, was less effective in those participants at greater risk of injury. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings with respect to injury rates.

Fire and scald burn risks in urban communities: who is at risk and what do they believe about home safety?

While largely preventable, fire and hot water-related injuries are common in the United States. Measures recommended to reduce these injuries are smoke alarms (SAs) and lowered hot water temperatures. This study aims to: (i) describe the prevalence of working SAs and safe water temperatures among low-income, urban communities and (ii) explore the relationship between these behaviors and individuals' knowledge and beliefs about them. In this cross-sectional study, the Health Belief Model was used as a guide for understanding the safety behaviors. A total of 603 households had their SAs and hot tap water temperatures tested and were surveyed about their knowledge and beliefs related to these safety behaviors. We found that 40% of households had working SAs on every level and 57% had safe hot water temperatures. Perceived severity and self-efficacy were significantly associated with SA coverage, whereas perceived susceptibility and beliefs about benefits were significantly associated with safe hot water temperatures. This study demonstrates the need to increase the number of homes with working SAs and safe hot water temperatures. Messages focused on a safe home environment could communicate the ease and harm reduction features of SAs and benefits and risk reduction features of safe hot water temperatures.

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention

BACKGROUND

In industrialised countries injuries (including burns, poisoning or drowning) are the leading cause of childhood death and steep social gradients exist in child injury mortality and morbidity. The majority of injuries in pre-school children occur at home but there is little meta-analytic evidence that child home safety interventions reduce injury rates or improve a range of safety practices, and little evidence on their effect by social group.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness of home safety education, with or without the provision of low cost, discounted or free equipment (hereafter referred to as home safety interventions), in reducing child injury rates or increasing home safety practices and whether the effect varied by social group.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), CINAHL (EBSCO) and DARE (2009, Issue 2) in The Cochrane Library. We also searched websites and conference proceedings and searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and previously published reviews. We contacted authors of included studies as well as relevant organisations. The most recent search for trials was May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials and controlled before and after (CBA) studies where home safety education with or without the provision of safety equipment was provided to those aged 19 years and under, and which reported injury, safety practices or possession of safety equipment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We attempted to obtain individual participant level data (IPD) for all included studies and summary data and IPD were simultaneously combined in meta-regressions by social and demographic variables. Pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated for injuries which occurred during the studies, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for the uptake of safety equipment or safety practices, with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies, involving 2,605,044 people, are included in this review. Fifty-four studies involving 812,705 people were comparable enough to be included in at least one meta-analysis. Thirty-five (65%) studies were RCTs. Nineteen (35%) of the studies included in the meta-analysis provided IPD.There was a lack of evidence that home safety interventions reduced rates of thermal injuries or poisoning. There was some evidence that interventions may reduce injury rates after adjusting CBA studies for baseline injury rates (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Greater reductions in injury rates were found for interventions delivered in the home (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91), and for those interventions not providing safety equipment (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92).Home safety interventions were effective in increasing the proportion of families with safe hot tap water temperatures (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.86), functional smoke alarms (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.52), a fire escape plan (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.77), storing medicines (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.84) and cleaning products (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.96) out of reach, having syrup of ipecac (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.44) or poison control centre numbers accessible (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.70 to 6.39), having fitted stair gates (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.17), and having socket covers on unused sockets (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.96).Interventions providing free, low cost or discounted safety equipment appeared to be more effective in improving some safety practices than those interventions not doing so. There was no consistent evidence that interventions were less effective in families whose children were at greater risk of injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home safety interventions most commonly provided as one-to-one, face-to-face education, especially with the provision of safety equipment, are effective in increasing a range of safety practices. There is some evidence that such interventions may reduce injury rates, particularly where interventions are provided at home. Conflicting findings regarding interventions providing safety equipment on safety practices and injury outcomes are likely to be explained by two large studies; one clinic-based study provided equipment but did not reduce injury rates and one school-based study did not provide equipment but did demonstrate a significant reduction in injury rates. There was no consistent evidence that home safety education, with or without the provision of safety equipment, was less effective in those participants at greater risk of injury. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings with respect to injury rates.

Disparities in the prevalence of smoke alarms in U.S. households: Conclusions drawn from published case studies

INTRODUCTION

Deaths from fires and burns are a leading cause of fatal home injury in the United States. Smoke alarms are one of the most effective interventions to prevent residential fire deaths. Nationwide, more than 95% of homes are estimated to have at least one smoke alarm. There is evidence that homes at highest risk of fire deaths lag behind national averages in smoke alarm use and maintenance.

METHOD

We compiled a comprehensive list of published studies that focus on smoke alarm prevalence in high-risk homes. Our findings show that there are substantial gaps in both smoke alarm presence and functional status between high-risk homes and national average estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

To save more lives, improved efforts are needed to reduce the disparity in smoke alarm prevalence and functional use in the United States.

Evaluated community fire safety interventions in the United States: a review of current literature

The purpose of the study was to assess the state of fire prevention research, provide an updated synthesis of evaluated fire prevention programs, and discuss the role of fire fighters and data systems in prevention efforts. The review included all evaluations of U.S. based fire prevention interventions published between January 1998 and September 2004 and any earlier articles about U.S. fire prevention interventions not included in two prior review articles. We retrieved information from each identified study including evaluation findings, involvement of fire service personnel and use of existing data systems. We identified twelve articles: seven reported on smoke alarm interventions, three on multi-faceted programs, and two other programs. Five programs involved fire service personnel in the design, implementation, and/or evaluation, and three used existing data systems. Studies reviewed suggest that canvassing and smoke alarm installations are the most effective means of distributing alarms and increasing the functional status of distributed alarms. The functionality of smoke alarms, an issue noted in earlier reviews, remains a problem. Programs involving partnerships with fire departments have indicated success in preventing fires and deaths, improving smoke alarm ownership and functional status, and improving children's fire safety knowledge. Using existing data systems to target and to evaluate interventions was effective. In the years since prior reviews, some improvements in the rigor of evaluation designs have been made, but there is still a need for high quality evaluations that will inform fire injury prevention efforts.

When one is not enough: prevalence and characteristics of homes not adequately protected by smoke alarms

OBJECTIVE

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has specific recommendations about the number, location, and type of smoke alarms that are needed to provide maximum protection for a household. No previous studies have examined whether or not homes are completely protected according to these guidelines. The authors describe the prevalence and home characteristics associated with compliance to recommendations for smoke alarm installation by the NFPA.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS

Data are from the baseline on-site survey of a randomized trial to measure smoke alarm effectiveness. The trial was housed in a longitudinal cohort study in a rural Iowa county. Of 1005 homes invited, 691 (68.8%) participated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Information about smoke alarm type, placement, and function, as well as home and occupant characteristics, was collected through an on-site household survey.

RESULTS

Although 86.0% of homes had at least one smoke alarm, only 22.3% of homes (approximately one in five) were adequately protected according to NFPA guidelines. Fourteen percent of homes had no functioning smoke alarms. More than half of the homes with smoke alarms did not have enough of them or had installed them incorrectly, and 42.4% of homes with alarms had at least one alarm that did not operate. Homes with at least one high school graduate were nearly four times more likely to be fully protected. Homes that had multiple levels, a basement, or were cluttered or poorly cleaned were significantly less likely to be fully protected.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that consumers may not be knowledgeable about the number of alarms they need or how to properly install them. Occupants are also not adequately maintaining the alarms that are installed.

It might work in Oklahoma but will it work in Oakhampton? Context and implementation in the effectiveness literature on domestic smoke detectors

OBJECTIVE

To explore data on factors affecting implementation processes in papers contributing to a Cochrane systematic review (SR) of smoke alarm interventions, supplemented by further papers not included in the review.

DESIGN

Screening for data on implementation on the basis of: (1) primary studies included in a Cochrane SR, (2) further papers relating to these and similar studies, and (3) approaches to authors of these and other relevant studies and reports.

RESULTS

Relatively few data were found to help people seeking to implement smoke alarm promotion interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

For practitioners and policymakers to be able to build on research evidence, researchers and journal editors need to ensure that sufficient data are published, or are otherwise available to interested parties to move from understanding the evidence to using it.

Do smoke alarms still function a year after installation? A follow-up of the get-alarmed campaign

The Get-Alarmed Campaign Follow-up Study was the second phase of an initiative to assure that homes of families at high risk of fire-related injury and death had functioning smoke alarms. Smoke alarms and/or batteries were installed in over 94 percent of 454 participating households in Schley and Henry Counties, Georgia, in 2000. Before the study began, 60.6 percent of these homes had smoke alarms, but only 36.6 percent had functioning smoke alarms. The follow-up study was designed to determine the experiences of participants with smoke alarms and whether participating households had functioning smoke alarms a year after baseline. Participants were phoned or visited and asked about their experiences with smoke alarms since the baseline study. During the interview, they were asked to test a smoke alarm, the results of which could frequently be heard. Respondents included 237 from Schley County and 113 from Henry County, for an overall 77.1 percent response rate. While 80.3 percent of respondents had a smoke alarm that was heard by the interviewer when it was tested, 6.6 percent reported that their smoke alarm had been disabled or had a dead battery. Over 75 percent of respondents had smoke alarm sound offs in the prior year, predominately due to cooking smoke, but only about 5 percent reported removing the battery or otherwise disabling it to prevent sound offs. However, the measures taken may render a household unprotected at a critical time. Efforts to increase protection with smoke alarms should be augmented with programs to insure adequate and timely testing and maintenance of existing smoke alarms.