Table 3

Increase in working alarms at follow-up relative to increase with current norm

Model 1Model 2
Independent variableCoefficient (95% CI)p ValueCoefficient (95% CI)p Value
Constant0.94 (0.61 to 1.28)>0.001−0.04 (−1.23 to 1.14)0.940
Full education or practice0.26 (0.03 to 0.49)0.0280.32 (0.09 to 0.55)0.007
Baltimore0.35 (0.07 to 0.63)0.0150.25 (−0.03 to 0.53)0.083
Pilot test home0.12 (−0.31 to 0.55)0.5790.08 (−0.35 to 0.51)0.718
Number of alarms working pre-intervention−0.75 (−0.85 to 0.65)>0.001−0.75 (−0.86 to −0.065)>0.001
Number of alarms installed0.22 (0.11 to 0.33)>0.0010.20 (0.09 to 0.31)0.001
Income group (DK=0)0.15 (−0.07 to 0.38)0.180
Income question refused0.16 (−0.09 to 0.42)0.211
Belief that alarms reduce worry0.18 (0.01 to 0.35)0.041
Belief that false alarms make smoke alarms annoying−0.12 (−0.24 to −0.002)0.046
Number of cases324308
Adjusted R20.450.47
  • Coefficients for Full Education or Practice show the increase in number of working alarms in the treatment arms relative to the increase in the comparison arm (Current Norm). Beliefs were assessed prior to education delivery. Case counts are lower for the regression that includes beliefs due to missing KAB survey responses.

  • KAB; knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.