Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27617192›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2016

Using photographic interpretation to evaluate the safety of home environments.

Carlee Lehna, Stephanie Twyman, John Myers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Carlee LehnaUniversity of Louisville School of Nursing, United States; School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, United States.
Stephanie TwymanUniversity of Louisville School of Nursing, United States.
John MyersSchool of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the US there were 400,000 home fires resulting in 2755 deaths, 12,450 injuries, and $6.9B lost. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the content-validity of photographs taken in the home for use as an educational instrument to teach about "safe" and "unsafe" fire safety practice for adults and older adults. A total of 73 home fire safety experts were provided 27 photographs to evaluate home fire safety practice. Initially, a Krippendorff's alpha was calculated for the first 24 questions to evaluate inter-rater reliability, and differences in demographics were evaluated. Unique codes and themes for the last three questions were identified and inter-rater reliability examined. A majority of respondents were female (n = 43, 60.6%), college educated (n = 61, 83.6%), nurses (n = 25, 33.8%), or worked for a fire department (n = 21, 29.6%). Their mean age was 45.5 years and they had 11.05 years of experience. The first 24 questions had high inter-rater reliability (Krippendorff α = 0.831). No significant differences existed between the strata of the demographic variables (all p-values > 0.05). Similarly, based on the codes and themes identified, the last three questions had moderate-to-good inter-rater reliability (Krippendorff α = 0.764). Providing photographs as a 'seek-and-find' or 'What's wrong with this picture?' tools and simplified visual images is an excellent way to aid recognition of unsafe home fire safety environments. Education through non-traditional visual methods increases the possibility of change for diverse low-literacy populations.

Indexed as

Diverse low-literacy populationsHome fire safetyInstrument developmentPhotographs

Identifiers

PMID27617192
PMCPMC5008039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.