| Study |
Participants (I/C) |
Intervention |
Assessment |
Smoke alarms |
Other outcomes |
Notes |
| Project Burn Prevention (McLoughlin 1979, MacKay 1982, McLoughlin 1982) |
I: 3 cities in east of state
C: 2 cities in west of state (with lower baseline burn incidence) |
I1: Mass media
I2: I1 + school program
I3: I1+ community outreach
C: No intervention |
Population surveillance for ER injury visits, 4 years before to 12 months after; telephone surveys |
Not reported for both groups |
Adjusted burn incidence rate ratio, during vs before: Intervention: I1) 1.4 (1.1, 1.6)
I2) 0.8 (0.5, 1.1)
I3) 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) Control:
1.0 (0.6, 1.5) |
|
| Miller 1982 |
I: 120 consecutive parents of children seen for well child care in middle class suburban practice
C: Preceding 120 consecutive, similar parents |
I: Pamphlet, brief education, discount alarms in office; usual well child care
C: Usual well child care |
Home inspection 4‐6 weeks after intervention.
Response rate:
I: 108/120 (90%)
C: 105/120 (88%) |
Intervention:
Owned: 79/108 (73%)
Installed: 72/108 (67%)
Functioning: 61/108 (56%)
Control:
Owned: 64/105 (61%) Installed: 64/105 (61%)
Functioning: 46/105 (44%) |
Not reported |
|
| LeBailly 1990 |
407 families with children <5 yrs seen for well child care in suburban practice or urban clinic, allocated sequentially in groups of ˜100 (differed on home ownership, socio‐economic status) |
I1: Free alarm and other safety devices, usual well child care
I2: Free alarm and other safety devices, injury prevention counselling, usual well child care
I3: Injury prevention counselling, usual well child care
C: Usual well child care |
Non‐blinded home interviews and inspections 9 months after intervention.
Response rate: ˜75% |
Intervention: Owned:
I1: 100%
I2: 99%
I3: 92%
(numerators, denominators not reported)
Control: Owned:
96%
(numerators, denominators not reported) |
Not collected |
|
| SCIPP (Guyer 1989, Bass 1991) |
I: 9 communities (total pop. 139,807)
C: 5 demographically similar communities (total pop. 146,866) |
I: Injury prevention program in communities, schools, homes, and clinical settings
C: No intervention |
Population injury surveillance 1 yr before to 2 mos after.
Phone survey response: pre‐ 59%, post‐ 85% (similar in 2 groups) |
Intervention: Owned:
418/508 (82.3%)
Change: +9.4%
Control: Owned:
339/409 (83.9%)
Change: +14.9% |
Adjusted odds ratio for burns (during vs before), in intervention vs control communities:
OR=0.8 (0.5, 1.2) |
Unpublished data provided by investigators |
| Schwarz 1993 |
I: 5 contiguous census tracts [3004 households (51%) participated]
C: 4 bordering, contiguous census tracts (similar socio‐demographics, baseline injury rates) |
I: Free alarms and installation; home inspection, education, modification; community education
C: No intervention |
Population injury surveillance 2 yrs before to 1 yr after program.
1‐yr post‐intervention inspection of randomly selected households.
Response rate:
I: 902/1250 (72%)
C: 1060/1472 (72%) |
Intervention: Functioning: 866/902 (96%)
Control: Functioning: 816/1060 (77%)
Adjusted odds ratio: 7.14 (5.0 to 10.0) |
Intervention: Fire‐related injuries/1,000:
Before: 1.83
During: 1.14
After: 0.86
Incidence change (after vs before):
0.5 (0.4, 0.6)
Control: Fire‐related injuries/1,000:
Before: 1.34
During: 2.68
After: 1.11
Incidence change (after vs before):
0.8 (0.6, 1.1) |
Unpublished data provided by investigators |
| Mallonee 1996 |
I: City area with highest risk of fire‐related hospitalisations and deaths
C: Rest of city |
I: Door‐to‐door alarm give‐away, fire prevention brochures, limited alarm installation
C: No intervention |
Population fire and fire‐related injury surveillance 2.5 years before to 4 years after program |
Intervention: Functioning at 4 years: 45% Control: Not collected |
Intervention: After vs 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)
Control: After vs 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) |
|
| McConell 1996 |
I: All 2350 new residents of subsidised housing
C: All existing residents (lower baseline fire risk, similar socio‐demographics) |
I: 35‐minute mandatory lecture and video on fire safety and prevention; reminder card
C: No intervention |
Population fire surveillance during 15 month study period |
Not collected for either group |
Intervention: 278 fires/100k person years
Control: 1538 fires/100k person years
Relative risk (Intervention vs. Control) 0.18 (0.16, 0.21) |
|
| Johnston 2000 |
I: 6 preschool enrichment centers C: 3 preschool enrichment centers (213 families) C: 3 preschool enrichment centers (149 families) |
I: Written safety information and free alarms or batteries if needed C: Written safety information only |
Home inspection 3 months after intervention |
Functioning alarms: Intervention: 211/211 (100%) Control: 136/143 (95%) Adjusted RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.12); Fisher Exact 2‐tailed: P=0.018; Functioning alarms acquired: Intervention: 13/211 (6.0%) Control: 3/143 (2.1%) Adjusted RR: 2.37 (95% CI: 0.52, 10.86); Fisher Exact 2‐tailed: P=0.33 |
Not collected |
|
| Ozanne‐Smith 2002 |
I: Municipality C: Demographically similar municipality (with higher baseline injury hospitalisation rate) |
I: 6‐year community injury prevention program: mass media, education, training, promotion and action for hazard reduction and environmental change C: No intervention |
Population injury surveillance; telephone survey post‐intervention of 250 randomly selected households each group |
Intervention: Installed: 166/248 (67%)
Installed since program began: 158/248 (64%)
Control: Installed: 166/250 (66%)
Installed since program began: 156/248 (63%) |
Fire‐related injury data not reported. |
|
