|
Citation
|
Saramago P, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Hayes HRM, Dunn K, Manca A, Kendrick D. BMC Public Health 2014; 14(1): 459. |
|
Abstract
|
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 [pound sign]34,200 per QALY gained compared to usual care. This was reduced to approximately [pound sign]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.
Language: en |