Predictors of sustaining burn injury: does the use of common prevention strategies matter?
The incidence of burn injury has decreased over the past several decades. Although this has been largely attributed to increased prevention awareness, few studies evaluate the effectiveness of implementing standard burn prevention strategies in preventing burn injury. The authors hypothesized that patients who sustain burns use burn prevention strategies less frequently than those who do not. This was a case-control study composed of a prospective survey questionnaire and retrospective burn registry query, which was performed in a suburban academic medical center with a burn unit. All burn patients seen by the burn service in the year 2008 and a nonrandom sample of nonburned emergency department patients and visitors during the same time period were enrolled. Demographics included age, gender, income, education, house type, insurance status, and prevention strategy usage including smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, fire extinguishers, and escape plans. The primary outcome of interest in this study was burn injury. Chi-square tests were used to compare rates, Student's t-tests were used to compare mean values of continuous variables between burn patients and others, and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the strongest predictors of sustaining burn injury. One hundred ninety-four burn patients and 348 nonburned emergency department patients and visitors were surveyed. Burn patients reported the same rates of smoke alarm usage (96.9 vs 96.3%, P = .692), carbon monoxide detectors (75.3 vs 67.2%, P = .05), and higher rates of fire extinguisher ownership (80.4 vs 72.7%, P = .045) when compared with others. In multivariable analysis, the strongest predictor of sustaining burn injury was less than high school education (odds ratio [OR] 3.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-10.27), whereas English as a primary language (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.89), a graduate degree (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.42), income >$50,000 (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.72), and keeping flammable liquids in a locked place (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) were protective against burn injury. Smoke alarms (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.22-2.61), fire extinguishers (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.80-2.32), and having an escape plan (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.29) were not protective. Patients who sustain burn injury use burn prevention strategies at similar rates when compared with those who do not. When holding demographic characteristics constant, utilization of most burn prevention strategies is not protective of sustaining burn injury. Those with lower levels of education and income remain more susceptible to burn injury.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, New York 11794-8350, USA.
Breena R
BR
Taira
Guy
G
Cassara
Hongdao
H
Meng
Michael N
MN
Salama
Jasmine
J
Chohan
Steven
S
Sandoval
Adam J
AJ
Singer
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002056:Burns / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D002648:Child; D003710:Demography; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D011322:Primary Prevention / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012042:Registries; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires