Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of effects in studies found

From: Personal security alarms for the prevention of assaults against healthcare staff

Study Design Device Outcome Reported measure Association
Gale et al. (2002) Cross sectional survey of managers of psychiatric units in NZ Pocket alarms Unit reported physical assaults (property damage, attempted assault, sexual harassment, stalking) Unit rates of risk factors compared using Mann–Whitney U test Associated with increased risk of assault (p = 0.0001)
Panic buttons No significant association with risk of violence
Gerberich et al. (2005) Nested case control study, survey of Minnesota Nurses Security alarm/panic button Self-reported physical and nonphysical violence events during the study period Adjusted odds ratio and 95% CI 1.56 (0.96–2.39)
User owned mobile telephone/personal alarm 0.30 (0.15–0.71)
Employer provided mobile telephone/personal alarm 1.01 (0.70–1.54)
Farrell et al. (2014) Survey of nurses and midwives in Victoria, AU Provision of personal protective equipment (such as mobile phones and personal duress alarms) Occurrence of patient and visitor assault, based on self-reported experiences of PVA over most recent 4 working weeks Adjusted odds ratio and 95% CI 0.73 (0.56–0.97)
Landau and Bendalak (2008) Survey of personnel in EDs in Israel Access to an emergency button (guarding) General Exposure to Violence Index (GEVI) based on self reported type and frequency of victimisation to violence during preceding year Multiple regression analysis Close to significant effect (p = 0.078) on respondents exposure to violence. Unavailability related to higher risk of victimisation
\