ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2012
Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: an economic evaluation.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations 2010-2019 and comparison to 1998-2009.Accident; analysis and prevention · 2020Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Health Economic Analyses of Housing Improvement Interventions and Insecticide-Treated Bednets in the Home.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Review
- 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
- Welfarism versus extra-welfarism: can the choice of economic evaluation approach impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies?PharmacoEconomics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe burden of residential fire injury and death is substantial. Targeted smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs are popular interventions used to reduce residential fire mortality and morbidity. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost benefit of implementing a giveaway or installation program in a small hypothetic community with a high risk of fire death and injury through a decision-analysis model.
methodsModel inputs included program costs; program effectiveness (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years saved); and monetized program benefits (medical cost, productivity, property loss and quality-of-life losses averted) and were identified through structured reviews of existing literature (done in 2011) and supplemented by expert opinion. Future costs and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. All costs were expressed in 2011 U.S. dollars.
resultsCost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) resulted in an average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) of $51,404 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved and $45,630 per QALY for the giveaway and installation programs, respectively. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) showed that both programs were associated with a positive net benefit with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 and 2.3, respectively. Smoke alarm functional rate, baseline prevalence of functional alarms, and baseline home fire death rate were among the most influential factors for the CEA and CBA results.
conclusionsBoth giveaway and installation programs have an average cost-effectiveness ratio similar to or lower than the median cost-effectiveness ratio reported for other interventions to reduce fatal injuries in homes. Although more effort is required, installation programs result in lower cost per outcome achieved compared with giveaways.
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.