If you build it, will they come? Using a mobile safety centre to disseminate safety information and products to low-income urban families

Gielen, Andrea Carlson; McDonald, Eileen M.; Frattaroli, Shannon; McKenzie, Lara B.; Backes, Bethany L.; Glenshaw, Mary; Shields, Wendy; Bulzacchelli, Maria T.

doi:10.1136/ip.2008.018325

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 The community promotion component included having neighborhood associations “spread the word” (e.g., through listserves or newsletters), posting lawn signs and posters, and having a team of two CHWs go door-to-door encouraging residents to be home for the event and delivering a scripted educational message or leaving a door hang tag if no one was home. On the day of the event, the CHWs again went door-to-door in advance of the firefighters letting residents know they were coming.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Fire Department Home Visiting Programs

Gielen

Shields

Frattaroli

et al. 2013

Journal of Burn Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study evaluates the impact of an enhanced fire department home visiting program on community participation and installation of smoke alarms and describes the rate of fire and burn hazards observed in homes. Methods Communities were randomly assigned to receive either a standard or enhanced home visiting program. Prior to implementing the program, 603 household surveys were completed to determine comparability between the communities. During a one year intervention period, 171 home visit events took place with 8,080 homes. Results At baseline, 60% of homes did not have working smoke alarms on every level; 44% had unsafe water temperatures; and 72% did not have CO alarms. Residents in the enhanced community relative to those in the standard community were significantly more likely to let the fire fighters into their homes (75% vs 62%). Among entered homes, those in the enhanced community were significantly more likely to agree to have smoke alarms installed (95% vs 92%), to be left with a working smoke alarm on every level of the home (84% vs 78%) and to have more smoke alarms installed per home visited (1.89 vs 1.74). Conclusions The high baseline rates of home hazards suggest that fire department home visiting programs should take an “all hazards” approach. CHWs and other community partnerships can be effective in promoting fire departments’ fire and life safety goals. Public health academic centers should partner with the fire service to help generate evidence on program effectiveness that can inform decision making about resource allocation for prevention.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Fire Department Home Visiting Programs

Gielen

Shields

Frattaroli

et al. 2013

Journal of Burn Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firefighters followed the same protocols for installation and resident education as in the Standard program, with the following additions: 1) community health workers (CHWs) went door-to-door one week in advance of the fire department’s visit and on the day of the visit to inform residents about the free services, answer residents’ questions about services, and encourage residents to participate; 2) a safety educator visited the home with the firefighters to provide tailored home safety education on hot water temperatures and CO poisoning; and 3) a mobile safety center with interactive educational exhibits and low cost safety products parked in the neighborhood on the day of the fire department’s visit, and residents were invited to visit it (Bulzacchelli et al [2009]; Gielen et al [2009]).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in smoke alarm coverage following two fire department home visiting programs: what predicts success?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDoor-to-door canvassing and installation of smoke alarms have been found to be effective at increasing the number of homes protected. This analysis reports on how smoke alarm coverage changes six months after a home visiting program in a large urban sample, and how this change varies by characteristics of the residents and characteristics of the services delivered during the home visit.MethodsFire department Standard and Enhanced home visiting programs were compared. During the home visit, fire fighters installed lithium battery smoke alarms. Residents in the Enhanced program received tailored education about fire safety. Six months after the home visit, participating residences were visited to complete a follow-up survey and to have the installed alarms checked.Results81% of the 672 homes that had a working smoke alarm on every level of the home at the end of the home visit remained safe at follow-up, and 87% of the residents found the home visit was very useful, and these rates did not differ between the Enhanced and Standard programs. The degree to which firefighters delivered their services varied, although households in which the resident’s engagement with the fire department team was rated as excellent were 3.96 times as likely to be safe at follow-up compared to those with poor or fair resident engagement (p=0.03).ConclusionsThere is a need to better understand how to maximize the time spent with residents during smoke alarm home visiting programs. This study helps with the development of methods needed for implementing and evaluating such programs in real-world settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40621-014-0030-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The CARES mobile safety center—a 40-foot truck outfitted like a home environment with educational exhibits and low-cost safety products—travels throughout the City (to schools, health fairs, day care programs, etc.) and has been evaluated favorably in community interventions (Bulzacchelli, Gielen, Shields, McDonald, & Frattaroli, 2009; Gielen et al, 2009). Since starting this work, the two safety centers have served more than 60,000 Baltimore City families.…”

Section: Children and Injury: Disseminating Proven Interventions To Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wombs and Whippersnappers

Gielen

2016

Health Educ Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

My talk will describe two public health problems facing women and children that were the focus of the work my colleagues and I did over my years as a health behavior change researcher. I start by addressing why a focus on women and children is important from a public health perspective and then provide two mini case studies: (1) identifying needs and interventions for women living with HIV and intimate partner violence and (2) disseminating proven interventions to reduce unintentional injuries in children. The conclusions present thoughts on the contributions of health education to these public health concerns and opportunities for the future.

show abstract

If you build it, will they come? Using a mobile safety centre to disseminate safety information and products to low-income urban families

Abstract: This approach to disseminating injury prevention interventions holds promise for enhancing the appeal of safety information and increasing the protection of children.

Cited by 14 publications

References 16 publications

Enhancing Fire Department Home Visiting Programs

Enhancing Fire Department Home Visiting Programs

Changes in smoke alarm coverage following two fire department home visiting programs: what predicts success?

Wombs and Whippersnappers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About