Firearm Research Research Articles

Developing Data-Driven Solutions to Firearm Violence

Firearm-related injuries remain a major public health crisis in the USA with significant impact on society. Communities nationwide have a growing need for solutions to mitigate the public health impact through data-driven innovative solutions built on the collective expertise of multiple stakeholders. There is an overall increasing incidence of firearm-related injuries over the past couple of years with more severe injuries and a higher mortality rate. The best available data clearly shows that restrictive legislation, non-liberal licensing, comprehensive background checks, and responsible firearm ownership are associated with lower firearm injury rates. A nationwide firearm research infrastructure is also needed to verify the potential role of these solutions. Firearm-related injuries remain a multifaceted national public health crisis that imposes a significant burden on many medical and social systems. Multiple data-driven targeted interventions can address different dimensions of the problem.

Patient-reported Outcomes at 6 to 12 Months Among Survivors of Firearm Injury in the United States.

Assess outcomes in survivors of firearm injuries after 6 to 12 months and compared them with a similarly injured trauma population. For every individual in the United States who died of a firearm injury in 2017, three survived, living with the burden of their injury. Current firearm research largely focuses on mortality and short-term health outcomes, while neglecting the long-term consequences. We contacted adult patients with a moderate-to-severe injury from a firearm or motor vehicle crash (MVC) treated at 3 level I trauma centers in Boston between 2015 and 2018. Patients were contacted 6 to 12 months postinjury to measure: presence of daily pain; screening for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); new functional limitations; return to work; and physical and mental health-related quality of life. We matched each firearm injury patient to MVC patients using Coarsened Exact Matching. Adjusted Generalized Linear Models were used to compare matched patients. Of 177 eligible firearm injury survivors, 100 were successfully contacted and 63 completed the study. Among them, 67.7% reported daily pain, 53.2% screened positive for PTSD, 38.7% reported a new functional limitation in an activity of daily living, and 59.1% have not returned to work. Compared with population norms, overall physical and mental health-related quality of life was significantly reduced among firearm injury survivors. Compared with matched MVC survivors (n = 255), firearm injury survivors were significantly more likely to have daily pain [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-4.87], to screen positive for PTSD (adjusted OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.42-6.58), and had significantly worse physical and mental health-related quality of life. This study highlights the need for targeted long-term follow-up care, physical rehabilitation, mental health screening, and interventions for survivors of firearm violence.

Expert Views on Gun Laws

Academics from different fields vary widely in their views on the effectiveness of gun control. Our results indicate that public health researchers are much more supportive of gun control than are either criminologists or economists. They are also much more opposed to deregulation. Economists, by contrast, are the most skeptical of new regulations and the most supportive of deregulation. The different groups of researchers also provide very different rankings of effectiveness when asked to rate different policies. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being put into public health research on gun control. Between 2015 and 2018, the federal government invested $43.2 million in firearms research, with 89% coming from the National Institute of Health. Congressional Democrats are pushing to include $50 million in Centers for Disease Control funding for additional gun research in the next federal budget. Some state governments are also putting millions of dollars into firearms research that consists exclusively of public health studies. Even larger amounts of funding are going to public health researchers from private sources. Yet the disparity in answers from our public health researchers on one hand, and our criminologists and economists on the other, raises questions about devoting so much money to only public health research into guns.

APA Joins in Call for Funding For Firearms Research

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government & LegalFull AccessAPA Joins in Call for Funding For Firearms ResearchKatie O’ConnorKatie O’ConnorSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:2 Dec 2019https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.12a19AbstractThough it is the second leading cause of death among children and adolescents, firearm injury prevention receives a fraction of the funding allotted to other leading causes of death.Citing the public health concern presented by firearm violence, APA and five other medical organizations wrote a letter to key members of Congress asking them to include $50 million in funding for research on preventing firearm-related morbidity and mortality in their final appropriations package.“Federally funded public health research has played a significant role in addressing other public health crises such as youth smoking and motor vehicle crashes,” wrote APA and its five partner organizations: the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Osteopathic Association.“We need to apply the same rigorous scientific approach to reducing injuries and deaths associated with firearms,” the letter continued. Known as the Group of Six, the organizations represent over 590,000 frontline physicians and medical students.The organizations applauded the House for including $50 million for firearm-related, public health research in its appropriations legislation but asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-New York), and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to also include the funding in any final appropriations package.Over 39,000 people died in 2017 due to firearm-related injuries, according to the letter. Two-thirds of gun-related deaths are suicide deaths.“The United States is one of the only countries in the world with a rising rate of suicide,” said APA President Bruce Schwartz, M.D. “Congress must act decisively to reverse this trend.”“Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death overall in the United States and the second leading cause of death for young adults,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “We need to dedicate research dollars to achieve a better understanding of this epidemic and prevent firearm-associated deaths.”A study published in Health Affairs in October analyzed the federal research dollars devoted to the leading causes of death for children and adolescents from 2008 to 2017. Cancer, the third-leading cause, received $335 million a year, while motor vehicle crashes, the number one cause, received $88 million. Though firearm injury is the second leading cause of death in this age group, it received only $12 million a year, “averaging $597 in research dollars per death,” the study found.“Pediatric firearm injury prevention is substantially underfunded in relation to the magnitude of the public health problem,” wrote lead author Rebecca Cunningham, M.D., a professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Michigan School of Medicine, and colleagues. “According to our analysis, federal funding for this leading cause of pediatric mortality is 3.3% of what is needed for it to be commensurate with the funding for other common causes of pediatric death.”The Group of Six letter pointed out that both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are well placed to conduct research on firearm mortality. With $50 million, researchers at the agencies “could conduct 10 to 20 new, large, multiyear studies each year,” the groups wrote.“With this research,” they continued, “we will be able to better understand and quantify the scope, root causes, and impact of gun violence and identify opportunities to reduce injuries and fatalities.” ■ ISSUES NewArchived

MYTH: Firearms Research Fell after the NRA Restrictions on Federal Funding

There is no evidence that gun control research fell when restrictions were put on federally funded research. Indeed, whether one looks at the number of total articles or total pages, firearms research has been as high or higher than when the restrictions were enacted. In 2013, well before federal funding could have any impact on publications, there was an explosion in firearms research in medical journals.

Priorities in Recovering From a Lost Generation of Firearms Research.

An editorial is presented which addresses firearms research in America as of 2018, and it mentions gun-related violence in the U.S., media coverage of mass shootings, and school shootings at places such as Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. Lobbyists for the firearms industry are examined, along with support for gun safety reform. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and population health research are assessed.

NewsCAP: APHA unlocks free public access to articles on firearm issues and research.

NewsCAP: APHA unlocks free public access to articles on firearm issues and research.

Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) position statement: restore CDC funding for firearms and gun violence prevention research.

The Society for Behavioral Medicine (SBM) urges restoration of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding for firearms and gun violence prevention research. Gun violence in the United States is an important and costly public health issue in need of research attention. Unfortunately, there have been no concerted CDC-funded research efforts in this area since 1996, due to the passage of the Dickey Amendment. To remedy the information-gathering restrictions caused by the Dickey Amendment bans, it is recommended that Congress remove 'policy riders' on federal appropriations bills that limit firearms research at the CDC; expand NVDRS firearms-related data collection efforts to include all fifty states; fund CDC research on the risk and protective factors of gun use and gun violence prevention; fund research on evidence-based primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment initiatives for communities that are seriously impacted by the effects of gun violence; and support the development of evidence-based policy and prevention recommendations for gun use and ownership.

NIH institute directors stand firm on not renewing focused firearm research program

NIH institute directors stand firm on not renewing focused firearm research program

Reducing Firearm-Related Harms

Letters18 August 2015Reducing Firearm-Related HarmsChristine Laine, MD, MPH and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhDChristine Laine, MD, MPHSearch for more papers by this author and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhDSearch for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/L15-5125-2 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:Dr. Jessee cites several sources that support his views about restrictions on firearms research and the effectiveness of strategies to reduce firearm violence. Figures 2 and 3 of the Crime Prevention Research Center report to which he refers do not show that published articles about firearms decreased after the 1996 and 2011 restrictions on the use of government funding for firearms research (1). However, Figure 1 of that report shows an increase from approximately 3 firearms articles per 10 000 medical journal articles in 1985 to 15 per 10 000 articles in 1996 when the Centers for Disease Control and ...Reference1. Lott JR Jr, Whitley JE. Myth: firearms research fell after the NRA restrictions on federal funding. Crime Prevention Research Center. 26 February 2014. Accessed at http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Did_Federal_Fund_Cuts_Really_Stop_Gun_Control_Research_Final.pdf on 16 July 2015. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M15-0428. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoReducing Firearm-Related Harms: Time for Us to Study and Speak Out Darren B. Taichman , Christine Laine , and Reducing Firearm-Related Harms Charles Jessee Reducing Firearm-Related Harms Charles Jessee Metrics Cited byFirearm Legislation and Advocacy 18 August 2015Volume 163, Issue 4Page: 325-326KeywordsAssaultConflicts of interestCrimeDisclosureFearFirearm injuriesPrevention, policy, and public healthResearch fundingResearch reporting guidelinesSafety ePublished: 18 August 2015 Issue Published: 18 August 2015 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2015 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...

Firearms research: The gun fighter

With his crisp blue suit and wire-framed spectacles, Garen Wintemute hardly looked frightening as he stepped to the podium last month to address a conference on paediatric emergency medicine in San Francisco, California. But his presence there made the organizers nervous. Wintemute, an emergency-department doctor, is better known as the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California (UC), Davis. As such, he has published dozens of papers on the effects of guns in the United States, where widespread gun ownership and loose laws make it easy for criminals and potentially violent people to obtain firearms. Wintemute has pushed the bounds of research, going undercover into gun shows with a hidden camera to document how people often sidestep the law when purchasing weapons. He has also worked with California lawmakers on crafting gun policy and helped to drive a group of gun-making companies out of business. All this made Wintemute a potentially risky speaker for the conference funder, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, which is barred by law from funding any activities that advocate or promote gun control. The meeting organizers had told Wintemute to stick to facts and avoid any mention of policies. But with the nation still reeling from the murder of 20 children and 6 educators, who were shot in their school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December, the conference organizers were not sure what Wintemute would say. He stuck to the facts, but also managed to make clear how he feels about the funding prohibition, which has effectively killed off most research on gun violence. “We don't have a labour force,” Wintemute told the assembled doctors. That has led to a striking imbalance in US medical research. Firearms accounted for more than 31,000 deaths in the United States in 2011 (see 'Gun deaths'). But fewer than 20 academics in the country study gun violence, and most of them are economists, criminologists or sociologists. Wintemute is one of just a few public-health experts devoted to this research, which he has funded through a mixture of grants and nearly US$1 million of personal money..... Language: en

Reporting Error in Household Gun Ownership in the 2000 General Social Survey

The use of surveys is one of the few ways to determine the extent and character of firearms ownership in the United States. The findings from such surveys have implications for both firearms research and firearms policy. Using data from the 2000 General Social Survey, the author examines the possibility of error in the reporting of household firearm ownership. Strong and significant differences in ownership reporting are found between married men and women, especially for those who were not socialized in part of a traditional “gun culture.”

Report Highlights Barriers to Research on Firearms and Violence

Better scientific evidence is needed to address critical questions about firearms and violence, according to a recent report from the National Research Council (NRC), Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10881.html). Answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, concludes the NRC's Committee on Law and Justice, which prepared the report. Much has been learned about the association between owning a firearm and its use in suicide, frequency of defensive gun use, and the effectiveness of targeted police interventions to reduce gun violence, noted the group, which specifically discussed the available evidence on topics such as right-to-carry firearms laws, firearms and suicide, firearm injury prevention programs, and criminal justice interventions to reduce firearm violence. But much of firearm research has been undermined by a lack of reliable data and weak study methods.

Reducing the burden of injury

Last month, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences issued a new report on the status and future of injury research, Reducing the Burden of Injury :...