Economic evaluation of smoke alarm distribution methods in Baltimore, Maryland

Abstract

Following the US guidelines for the value of a life, both programmes are cost effective, however, the standard programme may offer a better value in terms of dollars per death averted. The study also highlights the need for better data on the benefits of current smoke alarm recommendations and their impact on injury, death and property damage.

Cost-effectiveness of England’s national ‘Safe At Home’ scheme for reducing hospital admissions for unintentional injury in children aged under 5

“…To our knowledge, this is the first economic evaluation of a national home safety equipment scheme using real world data. Previous interventions to reduce unintentional injuries have tended to focus on one type of injury, for example, burns associated with fire,11–15 36 scalds16 37 and poisonings 17. All but one of these interventions were found to be cost-effective 36.…”

“…Previous interventions to reduce unintentional injuries have tended to focus on one type of injury e.g. burns associated with fire (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)37), scalds (16,38), and poisonings. (17) All but one of these interventions were found to be cost-effective.…”

“…These types of home safety interventions have been shown to increase safety equipment possession and use, improve home safety behaviours and reduce injuries 4–10. Economic evaluations of interventions to promote smoke alarm use,11–14 fire safety practices,15 thermostatic mixer valve use16 and poison prevention practices17 have been shown to be cost-effective, but there is little evidence of the cost-effectiveness of home safety interventions aimed at reducing a wide range of injuries 4…”