Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Nov 2;325(7371):995.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7371.995.

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

Carolyn DiGuiseppi  1 , Ian Roberts, Angie Wade, Mark Sculpher, Phil Edwards, Catherine Godward, Huiqi Pan, Suzanne Slater
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

Carolyn DiGuiseppi et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To measure the effect of giving out free smoke alarms on rates of fires and rates of fire related injury in a deprived multiethnic urban population.

Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Forty electoral wards in two boroughs of inner London, United Kingdom.

Participants: Primarily households including elderly people or children and households that are in housing rented from the borough council.

Intervention: 20 050 smoke alarms, fittings, and educational brochures distributed free and installed on request.

Main outcome measures: Rates of fires and related injuries during two years after the distribution; alarm ownership, installation, and function.

Results: Giving out free smoke alarms did not reduce injuries related to fire (rate ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.9), admissions to hospital and deaths (1.3; 0.7 to 2.3), or fires attended by the fire brigade (1.1; 0.96 to 1.3). Similar proportions of intervention and control households had installed alarms (36/119 (30%) v 35/109 (32%); odds ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7) and working alarms (19/118 (16%) v 18/108 (17%); 0.9; 0.4 to 1.8).

Conclusions: Giving out free smoke alarms in a deprived, multiethnic, urban community did not reduce injuries related to fire, mostly because few alarms had been installed or were maintained.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Flow of wards and households through the study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Watson L, Gamble J, Schofield R. Fire statistics: United Kingdom 1999. London: Government Statistical Service, November; 2000. . (Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 20/00.)
    1. Roberts I, Power C. Does the decline in child injury mortality vary by social class? A comparison of class specific mortality in 1981 and 1991. BMJ. 1996;313:784–786. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Runyan CW, Bangdiwala SI, Linzer MA, Sacks JJ, Butts J. Risk factors for fatal residential fires. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:859–863. - PubMed
    1. Mallonee S, Istre GR, Rosenberg M, Reddish-Douglas M, Jordan F, Silverstein P, et al. Surveillance and prevention of residential-fire injuries. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:27–31. - PubMed
    1. DiGuiseppi C, Higgins JPT. Systematic review of controlled interventions to promote smoke alarms. Arch Dis Child. 2000;82:341–348. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types