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
. 2012 Oct;43(4):385-91.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.021.

Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: an economic evaluation

Affiliations

Smoke alarm giveaway and installation programs: an economic evaluation

Ying Liu et al. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Oct.

Abstract

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 an average 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 interventions to reduce fatal injuries in homes. Although more effort is required, installation programs result in lower cost per outcome achieved compared with giveaways.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Karter MJ., Jr . Fire loss in the US 2009. Quincy MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2010.
    1. Ahrens M. Smoke alarms in US home fires. Quincy MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2009.
    1. Liu Y, Holland AE, Mack K, Diekman S. Disparities in the prevalence of smoke alarms in U.S. households: conclusions drawn from published case studies. J Safety Res. 2011;42(5):409–13. - PubMed
    1. Fire Safety Council. Home smoke alarms and other fire detection and alarm equipment: Fire Safety Council. 2006
    1. Ballesteros MF, Jackson ML, Martin MW. Working toward the elimination of residential fire deaths: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Smoke Alarm Installation and Fire Safety Education (SAIFE) program. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2005;26(5):434–9. - PubMed

Publication types