Strategies to Increase Smoke Alarm Use in High-Risk Households

A 3-year project was undertaken to evaluate two methods of promoting residential smoke alarm installation and maintenance in high risk households across the U.S. Five states (Arkansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina) participated. The two strategies under study were direct installation of smoke alarms and distribution of a voucher for free smoke alarms. The target population included occupants of high-risk households without working smoke alarms who were approached as part of a door-to-door canvassing program. Fire Safety education was provided to both groups. A follow up assessment conducted 6-12 months post intervention assessed the presence and functional status of smoke alarms in each of the two groups. Demographic and fire safety data were also collected at baseline and follow up for each group. 4,455 households were enrolled in the study [Installation Group: 2,206 (49.5%), Voucher Group: 2,249 (50.5%)]. Baseline characteristics of the groups within each state were comparable. Follow up data was obtained on 1,583 installation group households and 1,545 voucher group households. At follow up, 1,421 (89.8%) households in the installation group had working smoke alarms, compared with 997 (65%) households in the voucher group, Odds Ratio 4.82 (95% CI=3.97, 5.85) (p <.0001). On average, 47% of all households enrolled in the voucher group did not redeem their vouchers (range 26-63%). Direct installation of alarms by program staff resulted in working smoke alarms in 90% of households receiving the direct installation intervention. Only 65% of voucher households had functioning alarms at follow up, largely due to failure to redeem vouchers.

[1]  F. Rivara,et al.  A preschool program for safety and injury prevention delivered by home visitors , 2000, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[2]  N. Holtzman,et al.  A successful city-wide smoke detector giveaway program. , 1985, Pediatrics.

[3]  G. Istre,et al.  Surveillance and prevention of residential-fire injuries. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Phil Edwards,et al.  Incidence of fires and related injuries after giving out free smoke alarms: cluster randomised controlled trial , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  B. Pless Smoke detectors and house fires , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  M. Moffatt,et al.  House fire injury prevention update. Part I. A review of risk factors for fatal and non-fatal house fire injury , 1999, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[7]  Michael J. Karter,et al.  FIRE LOSS IN THE UNITED STATES DURING 2009 , 2002 .

[8]  M R Douglas,et al.  Comparison of community based smoke detector distribution methods in an urban community , 1998, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[9]  C. DiGuiseppi,et al.  Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function. , 2001, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  J. Sacks,et al.  Evaluation of three smoke detector promotion programs. , 1998, American journal of preventive medicine.

[12]  B. Israel,et al.  Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. , 1998, Annual review of public health.

[13]  M R Douglas,et al.  Estimating the proportion of homes with functioning smoke alarms: a comparison of telephone survey and household survey results. , 1999, American journal of public health.

[14]  Mary A. Linzer,et al.  Fatal residential fires: who dies and who survives? , 1998, JAMA.

[15]  Laura Ginnelly,et al.  Prevalence of working smoke alarms in local authority inner city housing: randomised controlled trial , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.