BMJ 2002;325:995 ( 2 November )

Papers

Incidence of fires and related injuries after giving out free smoke alarms: cluster randomised controlled trial

Editorial by Pless

Carolyn DiGuiseppi, associate professor, ^a Ian Roberts, professor, ^b Angie Wade, senior lecturer, ^c Mark Sculpher, professor, ^d Phil Edwards, research fellow, ^b Catherine Godward, research fellow, ^c Huiqi Pan, research fellow, ^c Suzanne Slater, public health project officer. ^e

^a Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Campus Box B-119, Denver, CO 80262, USA, ^b London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1B 3DP, ^c Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, ^d Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO1 5DD, ^e Department of Public Health, Camden and Islington Health Authority, London NW1 1LJ

Correspondence to: C DiGuiseppi
Carolyn.DiGuiseppi{at}uchsc.edu

Objective: To measure the effect of giving out free smoke alarms on rates of fires and rates of fire related injury in a deprived multiethnic urban population.
Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial.
Setting: Forty electoral wards in two boroughs of inner London, United Kingdom.
Participants: Primarily households including elderly people or children and households that are in housing rented from the borough council.
Intervention: 20 050 smoke alarms, fittings, and educational brochures distributed free and installed on request.
Main outcome measures: Rates of fires and related injuries during two years after the distribution; alarm ownership, installation, and function.
Results: Giving out free smoke alarms did not reduce injuries related to fire (rate ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.9), admissions to hospital and deaths (1.3; 0.7 to 2.3), or fires attended by the fire brigade (1.1; 0.96 to 1.3). Similar proportions of intervention and control households had installed alarms (36/119 (30%) v 35/109 (32%); odds ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7) and working alarms (19/118 (16%) v 18/108 (17%); 0.9; 0.4 to 1.8).
Conclusions: Giving out free smoke alarms in a deprived, multiethnic, urban community did not reduce injuries related to fire, mostly because few alarms had been installed or were maintained.

What is already known on this topic In the United Kingdom, residential fires caused 466 deaths and 14 600 non-fatal injuries in 1999 The risk of death from fire is associated with socioeconomic class One study reported an 80% decline in hospitalisations and deaths from residential fires after free smoke alarms were distributed in an area at high risk, but these results may not apply in other settings, and evidence from randomised controlled trials is lacking What this study adds Giving out free smoke alarms in a multiethnic poor urban population did not reduce injuries related to fire or fires Giving smoke alarms away may be a waste of resources and of little benefit unless alarm installation and maintenance is assured

---

© BMJ 2002
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Free smoke alarms: a fire officer responds

Roger Greet
BMJ 2003 326: 165. [Extract] [Full Text]

Free smoke alarm programmes are failing
BMJ 2002 325: 0. [Full Text]

When to act on evidence?
BMJ 2002 325: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Smoke detectors and house fires

Barry Pless
BMJ 2002 325: 979-980. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Phelan, K J, Khoury, J, Xu, Y, Lanphear, B (2009). Validation of a HOME Injury Survey. Inj. Prev. 15: 300-306 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Kendrick, D, Smith, S, Sutton, A J, Mulvaney, C, Watson, M, Coupland, C, Mason-Jones, A (2009). The effect of education and home safety equipment on childhood thermal injury prevention: meta-analysis and meta-regression. Inj. Prev. 15: 197-204 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Stone, K. E., Eastman, E. M., Gielen, A. C., Squires, B., Hicks, G., Kaplin, D., Serwint, J. R. (2007). Home Safety in Inner Cities: Prevalence and Feasibility of Home Safety-Product Use in Inner-City Housing. Pediatrics 120: e346-e353 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Brussoni, M, Towner, E, Hayes, M (2006). Evidence into practice: combining the art and science of injury prevention. Inj. Prev. 12: 373-377 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ginnelly, L., Sculpher, M., Bojke, C., Roberts, I., Wade, A., Diguiseppi, C. (2005). Determining the cost effectiveness of a smoke alarm give-away program using data from a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Public Health 15: 448-453 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Pless, I B., Hagel, B. E (2005). Injury prevention: a glossary of terms. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59: 182-185 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ehrlich, A. (2003). Providing free smoke alarms did not reduce fire related injuries in a deprived multiethnic urban population. Evid. Based Nurs. 6: 105-105 [Full text]  
• Greet, R. (2003). Free smoke alarms: a fire officer responds. BMJ 326: 165-165 [Full text]  
• Pless, B. (2002). Smoke detectors and house fires. BMJ 325: 979-980 [Full text]  
• Rowland, D., DiGuiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Curtis, K., Roberts, H., Ginnelly, L., Sculpher, M., Wade, A. (2002). Prevalence of working smoke alarms in local authority inner city housing: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 325: 998-1001 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Response from a fire officer

Roger Greet
bmj.com, 7 Nov 2002 [Full text]

Fire prevention and elderly people

Tischa JM van der Cammen, et al.
bmj.com, 5 Dec 2002 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>