Skip to main content

Table 3 Ratings in-home intervention components by observers and residents: comparing standard and enhanced study programs

From: Changes in smoke alarm coverage following two fire department home visiting programs: what predicts success?

Observer ratings at baseline home visit Standard N = 373 Enhanced N = 381 Total N = 754 1 Test statistic
   Mean % (SD) Mean% (SD) Mean% (SD)  
Fire Department Implementation Smoke Alarm Fidelity2 57.97 (22.26) 60.84(22.25) 59.51 (23.93) Rank Sum (p = 0.16)
Education Fidelity3 19.91 (20.02) 23.72(23.14) 21.85 (21.73) Rank Sum (p = 0.05)
   N (%) N (%) N (%)  
How would you rate the FD’s delivery of services? Poor or Fair 108 (29.59) 93 (24.67) 201 (27.09) Rank Sum (p = <0.01)
Good 151 (41.37) 137 (36.34) 288 (38.81)
Very Good 86 (23.56) 100 (26.53) 186 (25.07)
Excellent 20 (5.48) 47 (12.47) 67 (9.03)
How would you rate the resident’s engagement with the FD team? Poor or Fair 46 (12.57) 21 (5.57) 67 (9.02) Rank Sum (p = 0.10)
Good 157 (42.90) 182 (48.28) 339 (45.62)
Very Good 128 (34.97) 127 (33.69) 255 (34.32)
Excellent 35 (9.56) 47 (12.47) 82 (11.04)
Resident ratings at follow-up Standard N = 311 Enhanced N = 341 Total N = 652 4  
Thinking back to the home visit, how useful would you say it was for you? Very useful 266 (86.08) 295 (87.28) 561 (86.71) Rank Sum (p = 0.61)
Somewhat useful 33 (10.68) 37 (10.95) 70 (10.82)
Just a little or not at all 10 (3.24) 6 (1.78) 16 (2.47)
  1. 1Some variables do not add up to 754 due to missing item responses.
  2. 2Based on 5 components (tell resident about 10 year battery, show hush feature, show how to use alarm, give instruction manual to resident, screw in alarms).
  3. 3Based on 6 components (distributed checklist, discuss CO safety, discuss escape plan, discuss cooking safety, discuss electrical safety, discuss heating safety).
  4. 4Of the 708 residents completing the follow up survey, 652 recalled the fire department home visit and answered this question.