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 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 DiGuiseppi, C. Articles by McCarthy, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by DiGuiseppi, C. Articles by McCarthy, M.

The "Let's Get Alarmed!" initiative: a smoke alarm giveaway programme

¹ Child Health Monitoring Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health, University College London Medical School
² Department of Public Health, Camden and Islington Health Authority
³ Centre for Health Economics, University of York

Correspondence to:
Dr C DiGuiseppi, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK.

Objectives—To reduce fires and fire related injuries by increasing the prevalence of functioning smoke alarms in high risk households.

Setting—The programme was delivered in an inner London area with above average material deprivation and below average smoke alarm ownership. The target population included low income and rental households and households with elderly persons or young children.

Methods—Forty wards, averaging 4000 households each, were randomised to intervention or control status. Free smoke alarms and fire safety information were distributed in intervention wards by community groups and workers as part of routine activities and by paid workers who visited target neighbourhoods. Recipients provided data on household age distribution and housing tenure. Programme costs were documented from a societal perspective. Data are being collected on smoke alarm ownership and function, and on fires and related injuries and their costs.

Results—Community and paid workers distributed 20 050 smoke alarms, potentially sufficient to increase smoke alarm ownership by 50% in intervention wards. Compared with the total study population, recipients included greater proportions of low income and rental households and households including children under 5 years or adults aged 65 and older. Total programme costs were £145 087.

Conclusions—It is possible to implement a large scale smoke alarm giveaway programme targeted to high risk households in a densely populated, multicultural, materially deprived community. The programme's effects on the prevalence of installed and functioning alarms and the incidence of fires and fire related injuries, and its cost effectiveness, are being evaluated as a randomised controlled trial.

Keywords: smoke alarms; residential fire injuries; home safety