HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Read responses to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mueller, B A Articles by Grossman, D C Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mueller, B A Articles by Grossman, D C

Randomized controlled trial of ionization and photoelectric smoke alarm functionality

¹ Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
² Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
³ Alaska Injury Prevention Center, Anchorage, Alaska, USA
⁴ Department of Health Services, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, and Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Dr Beth Mueller, PO Box 19024, Mailstop M4-C308, Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA; bmueller{at}fhcrc.org

Objective: To compare functionality, reasons for non-function, and nuisance alarm levels of two common types of smoke alarms after installation in low- to mid-level income households in King County, Washington.

Methods: Randomized controlled trial of 761 households. An ionization or photoelectric smoke alarm was installed between June 1, 2000 and July 31, 2002. Main outcome measures were: percentage of study alarms that were working, observed reasons for non-functional status, and self-reported frequency of nuisance alarms at 9 and 15 months of follow-up.

Results: At 9 months after installation, 20% of ionization, vs 5% of photoelectric alarms were non-functional, a difference that persisted at 15 months, with the most common reasons for both types being a disconnected or absent battery. The risk ratio for ionization, relative to photoelectric alarms, being non-functional or removed was 2.7 (95% CI 1.8 to 4.1) at 15 months of follow-up. These findings were not altered by educational level, or the presence of smokers, children <5 years, or adults 65 years.

Conclusions: Burn prevention efforts are geared towards increasing smoke alarm ownership and improving maintenance of functional status. Results suggest that the selective use of photoelectric alarms by fire injury prevention programs or consumers may provide longer-term protection in similar populations. Designing smoke alarms that minimize nuisance alarming may also result in longer term functionality.