Literature DB >> 28183740

Preventing deaths and injuries from house fires: a cost-benefit analysis of a community-based smoke alarm installation programme.

Merissa A Yellman1, Cora Peterson2, Mary A McCoy1, Shelli Stephens-Stidham1, Emily Caton3, Jeffrey J Barnard4, Ted O Padgett3, Curtis Florence2, Gregory R Istre1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Operation Installation (OI), a community-based smoke alarm installation programme in Dallas, Texas, targets houses in high-risk urban census tracts. Residents of houses that received OI installation (or programme houses) had 68% fewer medically treated house fire injuries (non-fatal and fatal) compared with residents of non-programme houses over an average of 5.2 years of follow-up during an effectiveness evaluation conducted from 2001 to 2011.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-benefit of OI.
METHODS: A mathematical model incorporated programme cost and effectiveness data as directly observed in OI. The estimated cost per smoke alarm installed was based on a retrospective analysis of OI expenditures from administrative records, 2006-2011. Injury incidence assumptions for a population that had the OI programme compared with the same population without the OI programme was based on the previous OI effectiveness study, 2001-2011. Unit costs for medical care and lost productivity associated with fire injuries were from a national public database.
RESULTS: From a combined payers' perspective limited to direct programme and medical costs, the estimated incremental cost per fire injury averted through the OI installation programme was $128,800 (2013 US$). When a conservative estimate of lost productivity among victims was included, the incremental cost per fire injury averted was negative, suggesting long-term cost savings from the programme. The OI programme from 2001 to 2011 resulted in an estimated net savings of $3.8 million, or a $3.21 return on investment for every dollar spent on the programme using a societal cost perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: Community smoke alarm installation programmes could be cost-beneficial in high-fire-risk neighbourhoods. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28183740      PMCID: PMC5550354          DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042247

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Inj Prev        ISSN: 1353-8047            Impact factor:   2.399


  16 in total

1.  Fire fatalities among children: an analysis across Philadelphia's census tracts.

Authors:  Donna Shai; Paul Lupinacci
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  Strategies to increase smoke alarm use in high-risk households.

Authors:  Pauline A Harvey; Mary Aitken; George W Ryan; Lori A Demeter; Jeanne Givens; Ramya Sundararaman; Scott Goulette
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2004-10

3.  Determining the cost effectiveness of a smoke alarm give-away program using data from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Laura Ginnelly; Mark Sculpher; Chris Bojke; Ian Roberts; Angie Wade; Carolyn Diguiseppi
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2005-09-08       Impact factor: 3.367

Review 4.  Evaluated community fire safety interventions in the United States: a review of current literature.

Authors:  Van M Ta; Shannon Frattaroli; Gwendolyn Bergen; Andrea Carlson Gielen
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2006-06

5.  A cost analysis of a smoke alarm installation and fire safety education program.

Authors:  John E Parmer; Phaedra S Corso; Michael F Ballesteros
Journal:  J Safety Res       Date:  2006-09-29

6.  Economic evaluation of smoke alarm distribution methods in Baltimore, Maryland.

Authors:  Nadia Diamond-Smith; David Bishai; Elise Perry; Wendy Shields; Andrea Gielen
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 2.399

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

Authors:  Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Ian Roberts; Angie Wade; Mark Sculpher; Phil Edwards; Catherine Godward; Huiqi Pan; Suzanne Slater
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-11-02

8.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Deaths and injuries from house fires.

Authors:  G R Istre; M A McCoy; L Osborn; J J Barnard; A Bolton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-06-21       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: an economic evaluation.

Authors:  Ying Liu; Karin A Mack; Shane T Diekman
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.043

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Interventions for Preventing Residential Fires in Vulnerable Neighbourhoods and Indigenous Communities: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Samar Al-Hajj; Ediriweera Desapriya; Colleen Pawliuk; Len Garis; Ian Pike
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 4.614

2.  Systematic review of unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations 2010-2019 and comparison to 1998-2009.

Authors:  Mallika Mahalingam; Cora Peterson; Gwen Bergen
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  2020-09-09
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.