Smoke Alarm Giveaway and Installation Programs

Liu, Yunbo; Mack, Karin A.; Diekman, Shane

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.021

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Retrofitting of insulation and/or installation of heaters was examined in five studies [ 10 – 13 , 25 , 52 , 53 ]. Finally, giving away or installing smoke alarms was examined in three studies [ 54 , 55 , 58 ], regulating household tap water temperature to prevent scalds was examined in two studies [ 56 , 57 ], and increasing home ventilation was examined in one study [ 46 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quality varied across included studies, ranging in average score from 33% to 98% (median: 72%). The studies with the highest average scores were Liu et al 2012 (98%) [ 58 ], Bhatia et al 2004 (91%) [ 26 ] and Preval et al 2010 (83%) [ 53 ]. For interventions examined by four or more studies, studies on provision of smoke alarms received the highest average score (83%), followed by studies on provision of ITBNs or ITHs (73%) and retrofitting insulation and/or installing heaters (68%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study found that giving away smoke alarms was unlikely to be cost-effective [ 54 ]. In contrast, another found that both giving away and installing smoke-alarms was cost-effective and cost-beneficial, with the give-away programs being relatively more cost-effective than the installation program [ 58 ]. And the third study found this intervention to be cost-saving [ 55 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Analyses of Housing Improvement Interventions and Insecticide-Treated Bednets in the Home

Pega

Wilson

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHousing improvements have considerable potential for improving health. So does the provision of insecticide-treated bednets for malaria prevention. Therefore we aimed to conduct updated systematic reviews of health economic analyses in both these intervention domains.Methods and findingsThe search strategy included economic analyses of housing improvement interventions and use of insecticide-treated bednets for community-dwelling, healthy populations (published between 1 January 2000 and 15 April 2014). We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and three health economics databases. Thirty-five economic analyses of seven types of intervention fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most included studies adopted a health sector perspective and were cost-effectiveness analyses using decision analytic modeling or conducted alongside trials. The overall quality of the studies was generally likely to be adequate for informing policy-making (albeit with limitations in some areas). There was fairly consistent evidence for the cost-effectiveness/favorable cost-benefit of removing indoor lead to prevent lead poisoning and sequelae, and retrofitting insulation to prevent lung disease. But the value of assessing and improving home safety and providing smoke alarms to prevent injuries was more mixed and the economic evidence was inconclusive or insufficient for: home ventilation to prevent lung disease, installing heaters to prevent lung disease and regulating tap water temperatures to prevent scalding. Few studies (n = 4) considered health equity. The 12 studies of providing insecticide-treated bednets or hammocks to prevent malaria found these interventions to be moderately to highly cost-effective.ConclusionsThis systematic review provides updated evidence that several housing improvement interventions (such as removing indoor lead and retrofitting insulation) and also the provision of insecticide-treated bednets are cost-effective interventions. Nevertheless, for some interventions additional analyses are required to better clarify their health economic and health equity value.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Analyses of Housing Improvement Interventions and Insecticide-Treated Bednets in the Home

Pega

Wilson

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an economic evaluation of diet therapy versus drug therapy for the treatment of hypertension, the authors noted that CBA is theoretically better able to handle such decision problems, as patients take into account the costs of side effects and leisure time when stating their WTP [43]. A second study focused on the CEA and CUA results, expressing concerns over the methods used to assign a monetary value to life and healthrelated quality of life [44]. In both of these studies, there was concordance between the economic evaluation results.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Welfarism Versus Extra-Welfarism: Can the Choice of Economic Evaluation Approach Impact on the Adoption Decisions Recommended by Economic Evaluation Studies?

Buchanan

Wordsworth

2015

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-running debate surrounds the equivalence of the welfarist and extra-welfarist approaches to economic evaluation. There is a growing belief that the extra-welfarist approach may not necessarily provide all the information that decisionmakers require in certain contexts, e.g. evaluation of complex interventions. As the number of these interventions being evaluated increases, it is crucial that the most appropriate economic evaluation approach is used to enable decisionmakers to be confident in their adoption decisions. We conducted a literature review to evaluate the potential for the choice of economic evaluation approach to impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies. We found that for every five studies applying both approaches, one shows limited or no concordance in economic evaluation results: the different approaches suggest conflicting adoption decisions, and there is no pattern to which approach provides the most convincing adoption evidence. Only one study in ten indicates which results will best inform adoption decisions. We conclude that the choice of approach can significantly impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies, with conflicting results creating confusion over whether or not interventions provide good value for money. Health economists rarely provide sufficient guidance to decisionmakers to alleviate this confusion.

show abstract

“…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…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInjuries in children aged under 5 years most commonly occur in the home and disproportionately affect those living in the most disadvantaged communities. The ‘Safe at Home’ (SAH) national home safety equipment scheme, which ran in England between 2009 and 2011, has been shown to reduce injury-related hospital admissions, but there is little evidence of cost-effectiveness.Materials and methodsCost-effectiveness analysis from a health and local government perspective. Measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per hospital admission averted (ICER) and cost-offset ratio (COR), comparing SAH expenditure to savings in admission expenditure. The study period was split into three periods: T1 (years 0–2, implementation); T2 (years 3–4) and T3 (years 5–6). Analyses were conducted for T2 versus T1 and T3 versus T1.ResultsTotal cost of SAH was £9 518 066. 202 223 hospital admissions in the children occurred during T1-3, costing £3 320 000. Comparing T3 to T1 SAH reduced admission expenditure by £924 per month per local authority and monthly admission rates by 0.5 per local authority per month compared with control areas. ICER per admission averted was £4209 for T3 versus T1, with a COR of £0.29, suggesting that 29p was returned in savings on admission expenditure for every pound spent on SAH.ConclusionSAH was effective at reducing hospital admissions due to injury and did result in some cost recovery when taking into admissions only. Further analysis of its cost-effectiveness, including emergency healthcare, primary care attendances and wider societal costs, is likely to improve the return on investment further.

show abstract

Smoke Alarm Giveaway and Installation Programs

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Analyses of Housing Improvement Interventions and Insecticide-Treated Bednets in the Home

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Analyses of Housing Improvement Interventions and Insecticide-Treated Bednets in the Home

Welfarism Versus Extra-Welfarism: Can the Choice of Economic Evaluation Approach Impact on the Adoption Decisions Recommended by Economic Evaluation Studies?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About