Smoke Alarm Giveaway and Installation Programs
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Smoke Alarm Giveaway and Installation Programs

Filetype[PDF-194.17 KB]


English
Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

Details:

  • Alternative Title:
    Am J Prev Med
  • Personal Author:
  • Description:
    Background

    The burden of residential fire injury and death is substantial. Targeted smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs are popular interventions used to reduce residential fire mortality and morbidity.

    Purpose

    To evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost benefit of implementing a giveaway or installation program in a small hypothetic community with a high risk of fire death and injury through a decision-analysis model.

    Methods

    Model inputs included program costs; program effectiveness (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years saved); and monetized program benefits (medical cost, productivity, property loss and quality-of-life losses averted) and were identified through structured reviews of existing literature (done in 2011) and supplemented by expert opinion. Future costs and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. All costs were expressed in 2011 U.S. dollars.

    Results

    Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) resulted in anaverage cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) of $51,404 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved and $45,630 per QALY for the giveaway and installation programs, respectively. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) showed that both programs were associated with a positive net benefit with a benefit–cost ratio of 2.1 and 2.3, respectively. Smoke alarm functional rate, baseline prevalence of functional alarms, and baseline home fire death rate were among the most influential factors for the CEA and CBA results.

    Conclusions

    Both giveaway and installation programs have an average cost-effectiveness ratio similar to or lower than the median cost-effectiveness ratio reported for other interventionsto reduce fatal injuries in homes. Although more effort is required, installation programs result in lower cost per outcome achieved compared with giveaways.

  • Subjects:
  • Source:
    Am J Prev Med. 43(4):385-391
  • Pubmed ID:
    22992356
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4624218
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Funding:
    CC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States
  • Volume:
    43
  • Issue:
    4
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov