Evaluation of three smoke detector promotion programs |
| |
| Institution: | 1. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (Shults, Sacks), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724 USA;2. Injury and Violence Prevention Unit (Briske, Kinde), Center for Health Promotion, Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 USA;3. Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (Dickey), Murphy, North Carolina 28906 USA;4. Oklahoma State Department of Health (Mallonee, Reddish Douglas), Epidemiology Service, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117 USA;1. Idenix Pharmaceuticals, 320 Bent Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, USA;2. Dextra, Science and Technology Centre, Earley Gate, Whiteknights Road, Reading RG6 6BZ, UK;1. Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada & McMaster GRADE Centres, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;2. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;3. Principal, Rubix Health, Senior Advisor, Center for Medical Technology Policy, 4712 Keswick Road, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA;1. Medicinal and Process Chemistry Division, CSIR-Central Drug Research Institute, BS-10/1, Sector 10, Jankipuram Extension, Sitapur Road, Lucknow 226031, India;2. Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, New Delhi, India;1. Laboratory of Controllable Preparation and Application of Nanomaterials, Center for Micro/nanomaterials and Technology, Technical Institute of Physics and Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China;2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, PR China |
| |
| Abstract: | Context: Seventy percent of U.S. residential fire deaths occur in homes without a working smoke detector. To help prevent residential fire deaths, many programs have distributed or installed detectors in unprotected homes. Because persons receiving a detector may not install it and because detector batteries require annual replacement, the enduring effectiveness of these programs may be questioned.Objective: We evaluated the long-term functional status of smoke detectors distributed to high-risk households in eight areas of Minnesota, Cherokee County (North Carolina), and Oklahoma City (Oklahoma).Design: Cross-sectional.Setting: Home visits were made to check the detectors that were distributed 3 to 4 years earlier.Participants: Randomly selected households from the three detector promotion programs.Main Out-come Measure: At least one working smoke detector.Results: Participation rates ranged from 72% to 82%. The percentage of evaluation households with at least one working detector ranged from 58% in Oklahoma to 73% in North Carolina. In 76% of households with nonworking detectors, the batteries were either missing or disconnected. When batteries in nonworking detectors were replaced, 83% of the detectors regained function.Conclusions: Future programs should consider distributing detectors that do not require annual battery changes or find effective ways to ensure that batteries are routinely replaced. Programs should also provide each household with the number of detectors needed to meet the most current recommended standard of the National Fire Protection Agency. The evaluation’s participation rates support the practicality of unannounced home visits to evaluate home injury prevention programs in high-risk groups. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
