ArticleJournal of community health2004
Strategies to increase smoke alarm use in high-risk households.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001Pooled it
- Increasing smoke alarm operability through theory-based health education: a randomised trial.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2014Trial
- Improving firearm storage in Alaska native villages: a randomized trial of household gun cabinets.American journal of public health · 2012Trial
- 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 · 2018Article
- Distribution and Evaluation of a Carbon Monoxide Detector Intervention in Two Settings: Emergency Department and Urban Community.Journal of environmental health · 2017Article
- Using GIS to evaluate a fire safety program in North Carolina.Journal of community health · 2013Article
- Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: an economic evaluation.American journal of preventive medicine · 2012Article
- Evaluation of fire-safety programs that use 10-year smoke alarms.Journal of community health · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.