Preventing deaths and injuries from house fires: an outcome evaluation of a community-based smoke alarm installation programme

Background Few studies have examined the impact of community-based smoke alarm (SA) distribution programmes on the occurrence of house fire-related deaths and injuries (HF-D/I). Objective To determine whether the rate of HF-D/I differed for programme houses that had a SA installed through a communit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Injury prevention 2014-04, Vol.20 (2), p.97-102
Main Authors: Istre, Gregory R, McCoy, Mary A, Moore, Billy J, Roper, Carey, Stephens-Stidham, Shelli, Barnard, Jeffrey J, Carlin, Debra K, Stowe, Martha, Anderson, Ron J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accident Prevention
Accidents, Home - mortality
Accidents, Home - prevention & control
Analysis of Variance
Burns - mortality
Burns - prevention & control
Community Health Planning
Equipment Failure
Fatalities
Female
Firearms
Fires
Fires - prevention & control
Follow-Up Studies
Houses
Housing
Humans
Male
Program Evaluation
Protective Devices
Risk Factors
Smoke detectors
Texas
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Few studies have examined the impact of community-based smoke alarm (SA) distribution programmes on the occurrence of house fire-related deaths and injuries (HF-D/I). Objective To determine whether the rate of HF-D/I differed for programme houses that had a SA installed through a community-based programme called Operation Installation, versus non-programme houses in the same census tracts that had not received such a SA. Methods Teams of volunteers and firefighters canvassed houses in 36 high-risk target census tracts in Dallas, TX, between April 2001 and April 2011, and installed lithium-powered SAs in houses where residents were present and gave permission. We then followed incidence of HF-D/I among residents of the 8134 programme houses versus the 24 346 non-programme houses. Results After a mean of 5.2 years of follow-up, the unadjusted HF-D/I rate was 68% lower among residents of programme houses versus non-programme houses (3.1 vs 9.6 per 100 000 population, respectively; rate ratio, 0.32; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.84). Multivariate analysis including several demographic variables showed that the adjusted HF-D/I rate in programme houses was 63% lower than non-programme houses. The programme was most effective in the first 5 years after SA installation, with declining difference in rates after the 6th year, probably due to SAs becoming non-functional during that time. Conclusions This collaborative, community-based SA installation programme was effective at preventing deaths and injuries from house fires, but the duration of effectiveness was less than 10 years.
ISSN:1353-8047
1475-5785
DOI:10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040823