risk and protective behaviours for residential carbon monoxide poisoning - 3 burner gas grills

No background, no. fire-
Related carbon monoxide (CO)
Poisoning is the leading cause of poisoning deaths and injuries in the United States.
Residential poisoning caused by faulty stoves is the most common type of CO exposure.
However, through the annual furnace inspection and the CO alarm device, these poisoning can be prevented to a large extent.
Objective This study aims to identify knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that may lead consumers to adopt these protective behaviors.
Methods August 4, 2009 focus group (n=29)
Work with homeowners in Chicago, Illinois, to identify knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that lead consumers to take risk and protect behavior.
Discuss the transcribed and use the ordered meta-analysis resultsmatrix.
Results focus group participants were aware of CO poisoning and supported the idea of checking the stove regularly.
However, due to concerns about expensive repairs and unscrupulous contractors, few participants have been arranging professional inspections.
Participants usually have CO alerts, but many do not locate them properly and do not maintain them.
Some participants confused CO and gas, not sure how to react if the CO alarm sounded.
Incentives such as discounts and Inspector selection tips will make it more likely for them to arrange Furnace inspections, participants said.
Participants also identified trustworthy sources of cooperative education including Realtors, fire departments, home insurance agents and local media.
Conclusion the common risk behavior of participants is not random, but driven by potential knowledge, attitudes and beliefs.
Correcting misconceptions, providing incentives and working with trusted sources may encourage consumers to adopt more protective behavior.
An unintentional backgroundfire-
Related carbon monoxide (CO)
Poisoning is the leading cause of poisoning deaths and injuries in the United States.
Residential poisoning caused by faulty stoves is the most common type of CO exposure.
However, through the annual furnace inspection and the CO alarm device, these poisoning can be prevented to a large extent.
Objective This study aims to identify knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that may lead consumers to adopt these protective behaviors.
Methods August 4, 2009 focus group (n=29)
Work with homeowners in Chicago, Illinois, to identify knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that lead consumers to take risk and protect behavior.
Discuss the transcribed and use the ordered meta-analysis resultsmatrix.
Results focus group participants were aware of CO poisoning and supported the idea of checking the stove regularly.
However, due to concerns about expensive repairs and unscrupulous contractors, few participants have been arranging professional inspections.
Participants usually have CO alerts, but many do not locate them properly and do not maintain them.
Some participants confused CO and gas, not sure how to react if the CO alarm sounded.
Incentives such as discounts and Inspector selection tips will make it more likely for them to arrange Furnace inspections, participants said.
Participants also identified trustworthy sources of cooperative education including Realtors, fire departments, home insurance agents and local media.
Conclusion the common risk behavior of participants is not random, but driven by potential knowledge, attitudes and beliefs.
Correcting misconceptions, providing incentives and working with trusted sources may encourage consumers to adopt more protective behavior.
No, no. fire-
Related carbon monoxide (CO)
Poisoning is the main cause of poisoning deaths in the United States, resulting in more than 450 deaths, and 200 200 non-
Fatal damage every year.
1-3 a gas without color, smell and tasteless, CO is a by-product
Products that burn fossil fuel emissions. CO-
Emission products include residential products such as household appliances and gas.
Burner, gas stove, hot water heater, kerosene heater, car, portable generator and charcoal or gas grill.
Residential poisoning is the most common condition of CO exposure, accounting for most non-
Fatal injuries and almost half of deaths caused by the company
4-6 poisoning is most likely to occur in single-
Family homes, but also more
Unit homes, activity rooms and resorts.
In winter, six or seven residential poisoning cases are most common, with almost half of the victims sleeping.
When working properly, the stove should not discharge CO at home;
However, defective stoves and heating systems are the main cause of CO poisoning in residential buildings.
Therefore, if consumers take protective actions, CO poisoning in residential areas can be prevented to a large extent.
Such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning throughout the year (HVAC)
9, 10-check and appropriate CO alarm installation5-7
Avoid dangerous behaviors, such as using charcoal or gas grills in an attached garage for idle cars or indoors.
While experts know why residential CO poisoning occurs, there are few studies exploring the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that lead consumers to adopt these risks and protective behaviors.
In particular, little is known about the barriers and facilitators of routine furnace maintenance, or the frequency of such maintenance by consumers.
In addition, few studies have investigated the use, understanding and attitude of consumers towards CO alerts.
Identifying these potential factors may help health professionals educate consumers more effectively
Associated risks, and promoting protective behaviour, ultimately reducing CO deaths and injuries in the United States.
To fill the gaps in this study, this study aims to identify knowledge that leads to consumer attitudes and beliefs about risk and protective behavior in residential CO poisoning, and identify effective ways to promote these protective behaviors among consumers.
This paper reports the results of qualitative formative studies on property owners with natural gas or oil
And how these findings can be used to develop educational strategies and safety materials for the Prevention of CO poisoning in residential areas.
The method focus group can quickly collect data and is an ideal choice for in-depth discussions about why individuals hold a certain belief and attitude or behave in a certain way.
This information is difficult to obtain on a large scale.
The scale survey, especially in the absence of a clear category of responses.
Therefore, four focus groups were conducted with the homeowner (n=29)
Learn about their knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to CO poisoning in residential areas.
The focus group is in Chicago, Illinois, because the data suggest that residential poisoning is more likely to occur in the north latitude region and in states with high thermal utilization of oil or gas.
In addition, because previous studies have shown that the incidence of CO poisoning varies by age, 4, 17 participants were divided into younger (aged 25–45)and older (
Age 60 or above)homeowners (table 1).
View this table: View the inline View pop-up table 1 The number of focus groups and participants recruited by age segment and the qualifications to participate in the focus group, participants must (1)
Suitable for young or older age groups and (2)own a single-
Home with gas or oil-Furnace.
A professional marketing research company recruits participants through existing research databases and media advertising.
Recruiters contact potential participants by phone to assess their interests and screen them for eligibility.
Individuals engaged in a career in HVAC, health or media are not eligible to participate.
Data collection in August 2009
The one-hour focus group was conducted at a market research institute in Chicago.
Upon arrival, participants received written informed consent and were asked to complete a questionnaire on population and product usage.
A trained moderator guided each group using a semi-structured guide that explores the preferred sources of furnace safety and maintenance, knowledge of CO and CO poisoning, use of CO alerts, and security information
All focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed and participants were rewarded with $75 at the end of the meeting.
The design of the study was reviewed and approved to ensure that the contractors and sponsors of the study were protected by the Institutional Review Committee of the rrti and CDC, respectively.
Data analysis was performed after each focus group, and the study group listened to the situation report to identify significant findings and noted patterns and topics that might be expressed in the group.
After the data collection is completed, the data is entered into an ordered element
Divide the matrix of answers by group and question.
This method organizes a large number
Case Studies, techniques commonly used in qualitative research.
Three researchers independently reviewed the meta-
Matrix to identify patterns and topics in each topic, some differences in interpretation are mentioned by the lead author.
Quantitative data from the demographic and product questionnaire were also entered into a spreadsheet to describe the features of the participants (eg, education)
And behavior (
For example, home safety procurement, smoke alarm installation).
Given the design of the study, no statistical tests were conducted on the quantitative response.
In order to be eligible for the focus group, participants must (1)
Suitable for young or older age groups and (2)own a single-
Home with gas or oil-Furnace.
A professional marketing research company recruits participants through existing research databases and media advertising.
Recruiters contact potential participants by phone to assess their interests and screen them for eligibility.
Individuals engaged in a career in HVAC, health or media are not eligible to participate.
Data collection in August 2009
The one-hour focus group was conducted at a market research institute in Chicago.
Upon arrival, participants received written informed consent and were asked to complete a questionnaire on population and product usage.
A trained moderator guided each group using a semi-structured guide that explores the preferred sources of furnace safety and maintenance, knowledge of CO and CO poisoning, use of CO alerts, and security information
All focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed and participants were rewarded with $75 at the end of the meeting.
The design of the study was reviewed and approved to ensure that the contractors and sponsors of the study were protected by the Institutional Review Committee of the rrti and CDC, respectively.
Data analysis was performed after each focus group, and the study group listened to the situation report to identify significant findings and noted patterns and topics that might be expressed in the group.
After the data collection is completed, the data is entered into an ordered element
Divide the matrix of answers by group and question.
This method organizes a large number
Case Studies, techniques commonly used in qualitative research.
Three researchers independently reviewed the meta-
Matrix to identify patterns and topics in each topic, some differences in interpretation are mentioned by the lead author.
Quantitative data from the demographic and product questionnaire were also entered into a spreadsheet to describe the features of the participants (eg, education)
And behavior (
For example, home safety procurement, smoke alarm installation).
Given the design of the study, no statistical tests were conducted on the quantitative response.
As a result, a total of 29 people participated in the focus group (table 2).
There were widespread differences in education, income and gender among participants.
However, most of the individuals involved are young people (aged 25–45)
The focus group received a university degree or a graduate degree.
View this table: View inline View pop-up table 2 participant features furnace maintenance and maintenance most participants consider regular maintenance to be an important preventive measure for furnace safety;
However, the participants' definitions of maintenance vary and Furnace inspections are rarely carried out on a regular or ongoing basis.
The previous year, most of the participants in both age groups had personally checked their stoves and some had arranged professional inspections.
However, many participants acknowledged that the two inspections were several years apart, indicating that the repair of many homeowners was sporadic rather than regular.
Participants who arrange professional inspections may have a contract for furnace or electrical service.
In these cases, the participants arranged twice
Annual HVAC inspection, a professional prepares for winter by checking the discharge and function of the furnace.
Instead, participants who check the furnace itself mainly replace the filter, check the color of the flame, vacuum the burner tray, clean up the dust and debris, and perform a soap test to check for gas leakage.
While these tasks are useful and important, it is unlikely to detect a failure that may result in CO poisoning.
Despite their behaviour, the participants generally supported the idea of regularly checking the stove, with their main reference to economic benefits such as improving the efficiency of the stove, preventing costly repairs and ensuring safety.
Many participants also highlighted the cost savings of a properly functioning stove, and some compared the annual furnace inspection with the regular replacement of oil in the car.
Young participants placed particular emphasis on efficiency and avoiding costly repairs, while older participants emphasized safety.
Participants cited several reasons for the irregular inspection or maintenance of the furnace.
First of all, they suspect that professional inspections are expensive and they are concerned that it may find expensive repairs to be needed.
Second, they are not sure what services need to be performed during the inspection and what tasks need to be done by professionals.
The search for reputable professionals is also a major obstacle.
Many participants were unsure of how to identify a qualified, trustworthy professional and how to differentiate between reasonable and unnecessary repairs.
When asked how Furnace inspections are encouraged, some participants suggested that gas and utilities check for free or subsidized.
Others recommend providing reminders in gas and utility bills, managing the gas company's reminder phone, and educating consumers about what happens during a professional stove inspection.
Some participants also suggested providing tips to help consumers choose a reputable HVAC or inspection professional.
CO knowledge participants accurately describe CO as a gas without odor and color.
Nevertheless, many people are confused about the difference between natural gas and natural gas.
Some participants exchange these terms on a regular basis, and in a group some are not sure if they can smell CO if they are at their home.
Some participants also considered CO to be a "silent killer" who knew that it often affected people in sleep and recalled that it was unlikely that the victims would know that they were poisoned.
Participants correctly identified many symptoms of CO exposure (
Headache, drowsiness and dizziness)
And multiple CO sources can be named correctly (
Grill, stove, gas fireplace, kerosene space heater, gas dryer, gas stove and car for example).
When asked how they would respond if they found the CO at home, most participants said they would leave the house and call the fire department or the gas company.
However, a number of participants suggested that less appropriate actions be taken, including calling maintenance professionals, closing gas supplies, opening windows to ventilate the home, and CO alerts to investigate failures, and no need to leave home, fresh air is not needed.
Participants acknowledged that while they considered CO poisoning an important safety issue, they did not consider it on a regular basis.
When asked why, they think that the lack of traditional visual warning symbols --
Contrary to the graphic warning of home fires and gas explosions --
Make it difficult to remember CO poisoning.
Participants also reported that safety awareness activities generally do not include CO poisoning, while fire safety is usually included.
Almost all participants are aware of the CO alert and most report that they have at least one CO alert in their home. (
Note: Most Chicago municipalities have housing codes that require CO alerts. )
Half of the participants had multiple alerts at home and put them on multiple stories;
However, the other half of the participants had only one alarm clock at home.
Many (but not all) participants are aware that the CO Alert is a housing regulation requirement in Chicago, which may explain why in this study, more participants than found in previous studies reported ownership of the CO alert.
12, 13 because previous homeowners may purchase CO alerts, the ability of participants to replace and maintain CO alerts is also assessed.
Participants know that they can buy CO alarms in home improvement stores as well as in general retailers and online retailers.
Participants, however, kept their CO alerts inconsistent.
Although some people change the alarm battery every 6 months (as recommended)
Many people simply wait until the alarm beeps and sends a low power signal.
This finding is consistent with previous research.
Many participants were not sure where CO alerts should be placed at home and how much should be installed.
Most participants place CO alarms near stoves or gas appliances, many of which are in the basement or utility room.
Others put the alarm in a more appropriate position, such as a bedroom, hallway, or restaurant.
Some participants said there should be a CO alarm near the smoke alarm.
None of the participants acknowledged a connection between the location of the CO alarm and the ability of a person to hear it.
Few participants have seen or heard educational information about CO poisoning.
Some people recall seeing news featureseg, 60 Minutes)
Or an article in a parenting magazine.
Local news reports on CO poisoning deaths and injuries, while not educational, are the most common source of CO information.
When asked about credible sources of health and safety information, young participants rated TV and Internet news sites as preferred sources, while older participants preferred newspapers and television news programmes.
Participants made some suggestions on educating homeowners about CO poisoning, such as having Realtors educate new home owners, especially during family checks, or providing CO safety information at school, which children may share with their parents
Many participants recommended public service announcements or reminders about gas and utility bills.
Some participants also proposed to show common security at the Health Expo or at the kiosk at the mall.
In addition, several strategies were suggested to encourage the installation of CO alarms and regular maintenance of furnaces.
For example, coupons, discounts and homeowner insurance rebates are mentioned as valuable rewards for professional stove inspections.
Some participants suggested a tax benefit for replacing the old stove, and some were in favor of updating the housing code to request a CO alert.
Finally, many participants recommend coupons or group/neighborhood discounts when buying an alarm clock.
A total of 29 participants in the focus group (table 2).
There were widespread differences in education, income and gender among participants.
However, most of the individuals involved are young people (aged 25–45)
The focus group received a university degree or a graduate degree.
View this table: View inline View pop-up table 2 participant features furnace maintenance and maintenance most participants consider regular maintenance to be an important preventive measure for furnace safety;
However, the participants' definitions of maintenance vary and Furnace inspections are rarely carried out on a regular or ongoing basis.
The previous year, most of the participants in both age groups had personally checked their stoves and some had arranged professional inspections.
However, many participants acknowledged that the two inspections were several years apart, indicating that the repair of many homeowners was sporadic rather than regular.
Participants who arrange professional inspections may have a contract for furnace or electrical service.
In these cases, the participants arranged twice
Annual HVAC inspection, a professional prepares for winter by checking the discharge and function of the furnace.
Instead, participants who check the furnace itself mainly replace the filter, check the color of the flame, vacuum the burner tray, clean up the dust and debris, and perform a soap test to check for gas leakage.
While these tasks are useful and important, it is unlikely to detect a failure that may result in CO poisoning.
Despite their behaviour, the participants generally supported the idea of regularly checking the stove, with their main reference to economic benefits such as improving the efficiency of the stove, preventing costly repairs and ensuring safety.
Many participants also highlighted the cost savings of a properly functioning stove, and some compared the annual furnace inspection with the regular replacement of oil in the car.
Young participants placed particular emphasis on efficiency and avoiding costly repairs, while older participants emphasized safety.
Participants cited several reasons for the irregular inspection or maintenance of the furnace.
First of all, they suspect that professional inspections are expensive and they are concerned that it may find expensive repairs to be needed.
Second, they are not sure what services need to be performed during the inspection and what tasks need to be done by professionals.
The search for reputable professionals is also a major obstacle.
Many participants were unsure of how to identify a qualified, trustworthy professional and how to differentiate between reasonable and unnecessary repairs.
When asked how Furnace inspections are encouraged, some participants suggested that gas and utilities check for free or subsidized.
Others recommend providing reminders in gas and utility bills, managing the gas company's reminder phone, and educating consumers about what happens during a professional stove inspection.
Some participants also suggested providing tips to help consumers choose a reputable HVAC or inspection professional.
CO knowledge participants accurately describe CO as a gas without odor and color.
Nevertheless, many people are confused about the difference between natural gas and natural gas.
Some participants exchange these terms on a regular basis, and in a group some are not sure if they can smell CO if they are at their home.
Some participants also considered CO to be a "silent killer" who knew that it often affected people in sleep and recalled that it was unlikely that the victims would know that they were poisoned.
Participants correctly identified many symptoms of CO exposure (
Headache, drowsiness and dizziness)
And multiple CO sources can be named correctly (
Grill, stove, gas fireplace, kerosene space heater, gas dryer, gas stove and car for example).
When asked how they would respond if they found the CO at home, most participants said they would leave the house and call the fire department or the gas company.
However, a number of participants suggested that less appropriate actions be taken, including calling maintenance professionals, closing gas supplies, opening windows to ventilate the home, and CO alerts to investigate failures, and no need to leave home, fresh air is not needed.
Participants acknowledged that while they considered CO poisoning an important safety issue, they did not consider it on a regular basis.
When asked why, they think that the lack of traditional visual warning symbols --
Contrary to the graphic warning of home fires and gas explosions --
Make it difficult to remember CO poisoning.
Participants also reported that safety awareness activities generally do not include CO poisoning, while fire safety is usually included.
Almost all participants are aware of the CO alert and most report that they have at least one CO alert in their home. (
Note: Most Chicago municipalities have housing codes that require CO alerts. )
Half of the participants had multiple alerts at home and put them on multiple stories;
However, the other half of the participants had only one alarm clock at home.
Many (but not all) participants are aware that the CO Alert is a housing regulation requirement in Chicago, which may explain why in this study, more participants than found in previous studies reported ownership of the CO alert.
12, 13 because previous homeowners may purchase CO alerts, the ability of participants to replace and maintain CO alerts is also assessed.
Participants know that they can buy CO alarms in home improvement stores as well as in general retailers and online retailers.
Participants, however, kept their CO alerts inconsistent.
Although some people change the alarm battery every 6 months (as recommended)
Many people simply wait until the alarm beeps and sends a low power signal.
This finding is consistent with previous research.
Many participants were not sure where CO alerts should be placed at home and how much should be installed.
Most participants place CO alarms near stoves or gas appliances, many of which are in the basement or utility room.
Others put the alarm in a more appropriate position, such as a bedroom, hallway, or restaurant.
Some participants said there should be a CO alarm near the smoke alarm.
None of the participants acknowledged a connection between the location of the CO alarm and the ability of a person to hear it.
Few participants have seen or heard educational information about CO poisoning.
Some people recall seeing news featureseg, 60 Minutes)
Or an article in a parenting magazine.
Local news reports on CO poisoning deaths and injuries, while not educational, are the most common source of CO information.
When asked about credible sources of health and safety information, young participants rated TV and Internet news sites as preferred sources, while older participants preferred newspapers and television news programmes.
Participants made some suggestions on educating homeowners about CO poisoning, such as having Realtors educate new home owners, especially during family checks, or providing CO safety information at school, which children may share with their parents
Many participants recommended public service announcements or reminders about gas and utility bills.
Some participants also proposed to show common security at the Health Expo or at the kiosk at the mall.
In addition, several strategies were suggested to encourage the installation of CO alarms and regular maintenance of furnaces.
For example, coupons, discounts and homeowner insurance rebates are mentioned as valuable rewards for professional stove inspections.
Some participants suggested a tax benefit for replacing the old stove, and some were in favor of updating the housing code to request a CO alert.
Finally, many participants recommend coupons or group/neighborhood discounts when buying an alarm clock.
This study explores the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that led some homeowners to adopt risk and protective behavior for residential CO poisoning.
Overall, the findings reveal a number of potential beliefs and attitudes that could lead homeowners to abandon regular Furnace inspections and incorrectly install CO alerts.
While most research participants believe that regular inspections of stoves are valuable and can improve energy efficiency, the fear of expensive repairs and unscrupulous HVAC professionals is stronger and may convince many homeowners to avoid
Again, while most participants consider CO dangerous and have CO alerts, many people are not sure to have the proper number of alerts, and I don't know where to install them or if the alarm rings, how to react.
These findings have several effects on the prevention of CO poisoning in residential areas (table 3).
First of all, they suggest that raising awareness among homeowners about CO poisoning and educating homeowners on how to properly place and maintain CO alerts can be particularly effective.
These protections are relatively easy to adopt, and there is little investment from homeowners.
For example, most of the study participants have heard of CO and, despite some misconceptions, know that it can subtly poison the victims.
Therefore, creating a visual warning symbol and incorporating CO safety into the fire safety program may raise awareness among homeowners.
View this table: look at the results of the focus group survey and the summary suggested by the participants similarly, many participants already have a CO alert.
However, half of the participants installed alarms in inappropriate places, such as near the main electrical appliance (
Increase the risk of nuisance alarms)
Or away from the bedroom (
Reduce the possibility of hearing the alarm sound).
Therefore, providing a chart for the appropriate alarm installation and working with the manufacturer to include the chart in the CO alert package may increase the appropriate alert placement.
It may be more challenging to help and motivate homeowners to arrange annual Furnace inspections.
Given that many participants consider individuals (
Not professional)
The inspections are sufficient and they cite several obstacles to professional inspections and they may not be likely to take this protective behavior.
However, participants felt that financial incentives and reminders provided by trustworthy sources might persuade them to arrange an annual inspection.
Therefore, inserting reminders in gas or utility bills, providing tips for finding a trusted inspector, and publishing regional inspection cost estimates may make it easier for homeowners to check and not feel
The opinions of the study participants suggest that the timing of reminders and incentives can also maximize the homeowner's acceptance of Furnace inspections.
For example, real estate agents and home inspectors can educate homeowners about furnace maintenance during the purchase of a home, especially for those who buy it for the first timetime buyers.
Also, insert a reminder in a utility bill or electronic bill notification
As temperatures drop, homeowners may be encouraged to arrange inspections in the fall and start using the stove.
Finally, participants believe that several organizations and individuals are trusted sources of information and that health professionals may work with these groups to promote CO safety.
Specifically, it was the view of participants that gas companies, utility companies, schools, fire fighting
Fighter jets, realtors, and home insurance agents are reliable sources of home security information.
Working with these groups
As well as other family service professionals such as home health assistants and weather contractors-
Provide education (
Such as health expo)
And incentives (
For example, insurance discount for CO alarm installation)
Could be an effective way.
Due to the limitations of sample size and geographical conditions, this study is exploratory and has four major limitations.
First of all, all beliefs and attitudes about CO poisoning in residential areas may not have been determined yet, and additional results may have been found using larger samples.
Second, the focus group is in Chicago. in Chicago, the housing code requires the installation of CO alarms;
Therefore, in areas where alerts are not required, the knowledge of CO and the availability of CO alerts may be lower.
13. third, the study focused on the exposure of residents under a single CO poisoning scenario, and did not explore the use and entertainment of motor vehicles and generators during power outages (
Boat, private jet)
Industrial equipment.
These other CO poisoning conditions may be associated with different risk and protective behavior.
Finally, this is a qualitative research and self-
Examples selected in the group discussion settings.
As a result, the generalization ability of the findings is limited and the participants' responses may be influenced by focus group discussions and dynamics.
Conclusion This study identifies and examines some of the potential knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that lead homeowners to take risk and protective behaviour towards residential CO poisoning.
The results show that the common risk behavior is not random or rash, but because of concerns about expensive repairs and unscrupulous contractors, homeowners may avoid professional stove inspections, and they will choose the CO alarm location according to the misconception.
Understanding why homeowners take risk and protective behavior can enable health professionals to educate them more effectively about CO poisoning, disseminate information through credible organizations and individuals, and provide incentives for protective behavior.
What has been known about the theme of carbon monoxide (CO)
Poisoning is the main source of poisoning injury, usually caused by furnace and electrical failure.
Conventional furnace inspection and CO alarm devices can prevent CO poisoning to a large extent.
However, there is no evidence of the frequency of Furnace inspections and there are CO alarms in less than three households.
The study allowed few people to arrange a professional stove inspection.
It was noted that there were obstacles such as expected costs, concerns about expensive repairs and difficulties in finding reputable professionals.
Most people are not sure where to install CO alerts at home and how much to install.
Individuals do not know the location of The Alarm (In the bedroom)
Is based on the possibility of hearing the alarm sound.
Reminders of utility bills and regional cost estimates may encourage individuals to arrange Furnace inspections.
Home insurance discounts and manufacturer coupons can encourage CO alarm installation.
These findings have several effects on the prevention of CO poisoning in residential areas (table 3).
First of all, they suggest that raising awareness among homeowners about CO poisoning and educating homeowners on how to properly place and maintain CO alerts can be particularly effective.
These protections are relatively easy to adopt, and there is little investment from homeowners.
For example, most of the study participants have heard of CO and, despite some misconceptions, know that it can subtly poison the victims.
Therefore, creating a visual warning symbol and incorporating CO safety into the fire safety program may raise awareness among homeowners.
View this table: look at the results of the focus group survey and the summary suggested by the participants similarly, many participants already have a CO alert.
However, half of the participants installed alarms in inappropriate places, such as near the main electrical appliance (
Increase the risk of nuisance alarms)
Or away from the bedroom (
Reduce the possibility of hearing the alarm sound).
Therefore, providing a chart for the appropriate alarm installation and working with the manufacturer to include the chart in the CO alert package may increase the appropriate alert placement.
It may be more challenging to help and motivate homeowners to arrange annual Furnace inspections.
Given that many participants consider individuals (
Not professional)
The inspections are sufficient and they cite several obstacles to professional inspections and they may not be likely to take this protective behavior.
However, participants felt that financial incentives and reminders provided by trustworthy sources might persuade them to arrange an annual inspection.
Therefore, inserting reminders in gas or utility bills, providing tips for finding a trusted inspector, and publishing regional inspection cost estimates may make it easier for homeowners to check and not feel
The opinions of the study participants suggest that the timing of reminders and incentives can also maximize the homeowner's acceptance of Furnace inspections.
For example, real estate agents and home inspectors can educate homeowners about furnace maintenance during the purchase of a home, especially for those who buy it for the first timetime buyers.
Also, insert a reminder in a utility bill or electronic bill notification
As temperatures drop, homeowners may be encouraged to arrange inspections in the fall and start using the stove.
Finally, participants believe that several organizations and individuals are trusted sources of information and that health professionals may work with these groups to promote CO safety.
Specifically, it was the view of participants that gas companies, utility companies, schools, fire fighting
Fighter jets, realtors, and home insurance agents are reliable sources of home security information.
Working with these groups
As well as other family service professionals such as home health assistants and weather contractors-
Provide education (
Such as health expo)
And incentives (
For example, insurance discount for CO alarm installation)
Could be an effective way.
Due to the limitations of sample size and geographical conditions, this study is exploratory and has four major limitations.
First of all, all beliefs and attitudes about CO poisoning in residential areas may not have been determined yet, and additional results may have been found using larger samples.
Second, the focus group is in Chicago. in Chicago, the housing code requires the installation of CO alarms;
Therefore, in areas where alerts are not required, the knowledge of CO and the availability of CO alerts may be lower.
13. third, the study focused on the exposure of residents under a single CO poisoning scenario, and did not explore the use and entertainment of motor vehicles and generators during power outages (
Boat, private jet)
Industrial equipment.
These other CO poisoning conditions may be associated with different risk and protective behavior.
Finally, this is a qualitative research and self-
Examples selected in the group discussion settings.
As a result, the generalization ability of the findings is limited and the participants' responses may be influenced by focus group discussions and dynamics.
Conclusion This study identifies and examines some of the potential knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that lead homeowners to take risk and protective behaviour towards residential CO poisoning.
The results show that the common risk behavior is not random or rash, but because of concerns about expensive repairs and unscrupulous contractors, homeowners may avoid professional stove inspections, and they will choose the CO alarm location according to the misconception.
Understanding why homeowners take risk and protective behavior can enable health professionals to educate them more effectively about CO poisoning, disseminate information through credible organizations and individuals, and provide incentives for protective behavior.
What has been known about the theme of carbon monoxide (CO)
Poisoning is the main source of poisoning injury, usually caused by furnace and electrical failure.
Conventional furnace inspection and CO alarm devices can prevent CO poisoning to a large extent.
However, there is no evidence of the frequency of Furnace inspections and there are CO alarms in less than three households.
The study allowed few people to arrange a professional stove inspection.
It was noted that there were obstacles such as expected costs, concerns about expensive repairs and difficulties in finding reputable professionals.
Most people are not sure where to install CO alerts at home and how much to install.
Individuals do not know the location of The Alarm (In the bedroom)
Is based on the possibility of hearing the alarm sound.
Reminders of utility bills and regional cost estimates may encourage individuals to arrange Furnace inspections.
Home insurance discounts and manufacturer coupons can encourage CO alarm installation.
The author would like to thank Jeffrey Novi every hour for his help in reviewing and editing the manuscript.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Non-lethal, unintentional, non-lethalfire-
Related carbon monoxide exposure
US, 2004-2006.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly stands for 2008; 57:896–9.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Carbon monoxide-related deaths—
US, 1999-2004.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly stands for 2007; 56:1309–12.
Hampson NB, Weaver LK.
Carbon monoxide poisoning: a new incidence of an old disease.
Sea floor Hyperb Mediterranean 2007; 34:163–8.
OpenUrlPubMedWeb of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sciences.
Non-intentionalfire-
Related carbon monoxide exposure
US, 2001-2003.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly stands for 2005; 54:36–9.
OpenUrlPubMed, Scheerer A, T. Struttmann.
Carbon monoxide poisoning in Kentucky
Jky Med Assoc 2002; 100:447–53.
OpenUrlPubMed is done by Clifton JC 2nd, Leikin JB, Hryhorczuk, etc.
Monitor carbon monoxide poisoning using the national media editing service.
Am J. Med g Med 2001; 19:106–8.
Liu X, Paz MK, Flessel P, etc.
Accidental carbon monoxide deaths from California residents and other non-motorized vehicle sources.
Arch environmental health 2000; 55:375–81.
Scientific OpenUrlPubMedWeb yoyoyoon SS, Macdonald SC, Parrish RG.
Death of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning and potential for prevention of carbon monoxide detectors. JAMA 1998; 279:685–7.
Openurlcrosspubmedweb of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sciences.
Use carbon monoxide alarms to prevent poisoning during power outages-
December 2002, North Carolina.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly stands for 2004; 53:189–92.
OpenUrlPubMed alimkrenzelok EP, Rose, R, R.
Carbon monoxide . . . . . . Silent killer, sound solution.
Am J. Med g Med 1996; 14:484–6.
Openurlcrossrefpmed Bizovi Ke Leikin JB, Hryhorczuk do, etc.
Siren night: carbon monoxide analysis-
Detector experience in suburban Chicago.
Ann Med 1998g Med; 31:737–40.
Scientific openurlcrosspubmedweb runrunyan CW, Johnson RM, Yang J, et al.
Risk and protective factors of fire, Burns and carbon monoxide poisoning in the United StatesS. households.
J Prev Med 2005 in the morning; 28:102–8.
The scientific openurlcrosspubmedweb let me, Damon SA.
S. attitude towards carbon monoxide safety: results from the 2005 and 2006 health style surveys.
Representative of public health 2011; 126(Suppl 1):100–7.
Morgan D.
Focus group guide.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, 1998.
Alimmoolenaar RL, escaerra, murrishrg.
From 1980 to 1988, New Mexico died unexpectedly due to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Comparison of forensic and national mortality data.
J Med 1995 West; 163:431–4.
Scientific OpenUrlPubMedWeb cobb N, Etzel RA.
Unintentional carbon monoxide
In the United States, as of 1988, the number of deaths was 1979. JAMA 1991; 266:659–63.
Dr. law of openurlcrossrefpmedweb Science Ralph Ralston, Ms. Hampson NB.
The incidence of serious unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning varies by race/ethnicity.
Representative of public health 2000; 115:46–51.
The morning of OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb Science Daily Huberman, Wanli MBDenzin NK.
Explain the process.
In: Huberman AM, Miles MB, eds.
Companion of qualitative researchers
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, 2002:349-66.
Matthew Berman miles M.
Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, 1994.
National Science Foundation (NSF). User-
Friendly Manual for evaluation of Mixed Methods.
Arlington, Virginia: research, evaluation and Communication Division, National Science Foundation, 1997.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
These findings and conclusions are the findings and conclusions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CDC or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
There is no competitive interest.
Ethical Examination and approval provided :(1)
The institutional review committee and (2)
The Institutional Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Uncommissioned source and peer review;
External peer review.
Unpublished research data-
Such as focus group notes and transcripts-
It can only be obtained with the approval of the paper authors, ti International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States.
A written request for such data shall be submitted to the corresponding author.