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 |
