Cost-effectiveness of interventions for increasing the possession of functioning smoke alarms in households with pre-school children: a modelling study

BMC Public Health

Denise Kendrick⁴  Andrea Manca³  Ken Dunn¹  Mike Hayes⁵  Alex J Sutton²  Nicola J Cooper²  Pedro Saramago³ 

[1] iBID, South Manchester University Hospital, Manchester, UK;Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 2nd Floor Adrian Building, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK;Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK;Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK;Child Accident Prevention Trust, Canterbury Court (1.09), London, UK

关键词: Child home injuries;    Fire-related injuries;    Decision model;    Smoke alarms;    Cost-effectiveness analysis;   

Others  :  1130620
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-459

 received in 2013-12-06, accepted in 2014-04-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The UK has one of the highest rates for deaths from fire and flames in children aged 0–14 years compared to other high income countries. Evidence shows that smoke alarms can reduce the risk of fire-related injury but little exists on their cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of different interventions for the uptake of ‘functioning’ smoke alarms and consequently for the prevention of fire-related injuries in children in the UK.

Methods

We carried out a decision model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. We used a hypothetical population of newborns and evaluated the impact of living in a household with or without a functioning smoke alarm during the first 5 years of their life on overall lifetime costs and quality of life from a public health perspective. We compared seven interventions, ranging from usual care to more complex interventions comprising of education, free/low cost equipment giveaway, equipment fitting and/or home safety inspection.

Results

Education and free/low cost equipment was the most cost-effective intervention with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £34,200 per QALY gained compared to usual care. This was reduced to approximately £4,500 per QALY gained when 1.8 children under the age of 5 were assumed per household.

Conclusions

Assessing cost-effectiveness, as well as effectiveness, is important in a public sector system operating under a fixed budget restraint. As highlighted in this study, the more effective interventions (in this case the more complex interventions) may not necessarily be the ones considered the most cost-effective.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Saramago et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Peden M, Oyegbite K, Ozanne-Smith J, Hyder AA, Branche C, Rahman A, Rivara F, Bartolomeos K: World Report on Child Injury Prevention. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2008.
• [2]Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Fires in the Home: findings from the 2004/5 Survey of English Housing. London: ODPM publications; 2006.
• [3]Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Fire statistics. London, UK: ODPM publications; 2010.
• [4]UNICEF: A league table of child deaths by injury in rich nations. Report No. 2. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre; 2001.
• [5]Department for Communities and Local Government: Fire Statistics Monitor: April 2011 to March 2012. London: NATIONAL STATISTICS; 2012.
• [6]Government DfCaL: Fire Statistics, Great Britain 2011 to 2012. London: NATIONAL STATISTICS; 2012.
• [7]DiGuiseppi C, Goss CW, Higgins JPT: Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001, 2:1-77.
• [8]Runyan CW, Bangdiwala SI, Linzer MA, Sacks JJ, Butts J: Risk factors for fatal residential fires. N Engl J Med 1992, 327(12):859-863.
• [9]Marshall SW, Runyan CW, Bangdiwala SI, Linzer MA, Sacks JJ, Butts JD: Fatal residential fires: who dies and who survives? J Am Med Assoc 1998, 279(20):1633-1637.
• [10]Department for Communities and Local Government: Fire Kills Campaign: Annual report 2011–12. London: NATIONAL STATISTICS; 2012.
• [11]Barrow RE, Spies M, Barrow LN, Herndon DN: Influence of demographics and inhalation injury on burn mortality in children. Burns 2004, 30:72-77.
• [12]Haddix AC, Mallonee R, Waxweiler R, Douglas MR: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a smoke alarm giveaway program in Okalahoma City, Oklahoma. Inj Prev 2001, 7(4):276-281.
• [13]Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Bojke C, Roberts I, Wade A, Diguiseppi C: Determining the cost-effectiveness of a smoke alarm giveaway program using data from a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pub Health 2005, 15(5):448-453.
• [14]Pitt M, Anderson R, Moxham T: Report 3: Cost-Effectiveness Modelling of Home Based Interventions Aimed At Reducing Unintentional Injuries in Children. Preventing Unintentional Injuries Among Under-15s in the Home 2009.
• [15]Miller TR, Levy DT: Cost outcome analysis in injury prevention and control: a primer on methods. Inj Prev 1997, 3(4):288-293.
• [16]Cooper NJ, Kendrick D, Achana F, Dhiman P, Saramago P, He Z, Le Cozannet E, Wynn P, Sutton AJ: Mixed treatment comparison to evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies to increase the possession of smoke alarms by households. Epidemiol Rev 2012, 34(1):32-45.
• [17]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
• [18]Social Value Judgements: Principles For the Development of NICE Guidance http://www.nice.org.uk/media/C18/30/SVJ2PUBLICATION2008.pdf webcite
• [19]Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S: Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. PharmacoEconomics 2006, 24(4):355-372.
• [20]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. 2nd edition. London: NICE; 2009.
• [21]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. 3rd edition. 2012.
• [22]Kind P, Hardmand G, Macran S: UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. In Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper Series. vol. 172 edition. York, UK: University of York; 1999.
• [23]Office of National Statistics: Families and Households. London; 2010.
• [24]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: PH30 Preventing Unintentional Injuries among the Under-15s in the Home. London: NICE; 2010.
• [25]Sellar C, Ferguson JA, Goldacre MJ: Occurrence and repetition of hospital admissions for accidents in preschool children. BMJ 1991, 302(6767):16-19.
• [26]Kendrick D, Mulvaney C, Watson M: Does targeting injury prevention towards families in disadvantaged areas reduce inequalities in safety practices? Health Educ Res 2009, 24(1):32-41.
• [27]Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York; 2009.
• [28]Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, Riggs E, Cuervo LG, Lumbiganon P, Hawe P: Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health 2010, 30(1):103-109.
• [29]Kelly M, McDaid D, Ludbrook A, Powell J: Economic Appraisal of Public Health Interventions. NHS Health Development Agency: London; 2005.
• [30]Morestin F, Gauvin F-P, Hogue M-C, NBenoit F: Methods for synthesizing knowledge about public policies. Quebec: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy; 2010.
• [31]Weatherly H, Drummond M, Claxton K, Cookson R, Ferguson B, Godfrey C, Rice N, Sculpher M, Sowden A: Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy 2009, 93:85-92.
• [32]Lumley T: Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002, 21(16):2313-2324.
• [33]Iglesias C, Nelson E, Cullum N, Torgerson D: Economic analysis of VenUS I, a randomized trial of two bandages for treating venous leg ulcers. Br J Surg 2004, 91(10):1300-1306.
• [34]Caldwell D, Ades A, Higgins J: Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005, 331(7521):897-900.
• [35]Ades A, Sculpher M, Sutton A, Abrams K, Cooper N, Welton N, Lu G: Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24(1):1-19.
• [36]UK Census http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/census-2001/index.html webcite
• [37]UK Census http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_304116.pdf webcite
• [38]Cooper N, Kendrick D, Achana F, Dhiman P, He Z, Wynn P, Le Cozannet E, Saramago P, Sutton A: Network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of smoke alarms. Epidemiol Rev 2012, 34(1):32-45.
• [39]Istre G, McCoy M, Carlin D, McClain J: Residential fire related deaths and injuries among children: fireplay, smoke alarms, and prevention. Inj Prev 2002, 8(2):128-132.
• [40]Dunn K: Severity and Cost of Fire Injuries Data from the International Burn Injury Database. Manchester; 2010. http://www.ibidb.org webcite
• [41]Hemington-Gorse SJ, Potokar TS, Drew PJ, Dickson WA: Burn care costing: the Welsh experience. Burns 2009, 35(3):378-382.
• [42]Communities and Local Government: Fire Statistics UK. London: National Statistics; 2007.
• [43]Interim Life Tables, England & Wales http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/interim-life-tables/interim-life-tables/index.html webcite
• [44]Curtis L: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. Canterbury: PSSRU; 2008.
• [45]Curtis L: Unit Costs of Health & Social Care. Canterbury: PSSRU; 2012.
• [46]Zdanowska J: Home Safety Equipment Prices. Personal communication; 2010.
• [47]DiGuiseppi C, Slater S, Roberts I, Adams L, Sculpher M, Wade A, McCarthy M: The “Let’s Get Alamred!” initiative: a smoke alarm giveaway programme. Inj Prev 1999, 5(3):177-182.
• [48]NHS Reference Costs http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_111591 webcite
• [49]Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Fires in the home: findings from the 2002/3 British Crime Survey. London: ODPM publications; 2004.
• [50]Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: The economic cost of fire: Estimates for 2004. London: ODPM publications; 2006.
• [51]Sanchez JL, Bastida JL, Martínez MM, Moreno JMM, Chamorro JJ: Socio-economic cost and health-related quality of life of burn victims in Spain. Burns 2008, 34(7):975-981.