Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15471420›Full record

ArticleJournal of community health2004

Strategies to increase smoke alarm use in high-risk households.

Pauline A Harvey, Mary Aitken, George W Ryan, Lori A Demeter, Jeanne Givens, Ramya Sundararaman, Scott Goulette

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community health, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Preventing deaths and injuries from house fires: a cost-benefit analysis of a community-based smoke alarm installation programme.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Pauline A HarveyNational Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E. (E-05), Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. pharvey@cdc.gov
Mary Aitken
George W Ryan
Lori A Demeter
Jeanne Givens
Ramya Sundararaman
Scott Goulette
Arkansas Children's Hospital · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEducation Development Center · USMaryland Department of Health · USNational Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases · USNC Department of Health and Human Services · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

HousingSmokeAgedChild, PreschoolFiresHealth EducationHumansInfantInfant, NewbornProtective DevicesRisk AssessmentSafetySocioeconomic FactorsSmoke

Identifiers

PMID15471420
OpenAlexW2083006858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.