Firearm-related research articles in health sciences by funding status and type: A scoping review.

Federal funding for firearm-related research in the health sciences has incurred Congressional restrictions and executive actions. Little is known about the funding landscape for published scholarship in this field. This study's aim was to characterize the number and sources of funding, including federal and non-federal sources, for firearm-related research articles published in health sciences journals. We performed a scoping review of original, empirical, peer-reviewed articles related to firearms published in health science journals and indexed in PubMed between January 2000 and December 2019, using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Review checklist. Four reviewers independently screened each article twice for inclusion. Included articles were reviewed again to identify funding sources. Articles were characterized as having explicitly declared funding, explicitly declared no funding, or no explicit funding declaration. Among articles with funding, we examined proportions by funding source. 812 articles met the inclusion criteria. 119 (14.7%) of the articles declared not having received any funding, and 240 (29.6%) had no funding declaration. 453 (55.8%) of the articles declared at least one source of funding. Of those, 221 (48.8%) reported at least one federal grant, and 232 (51.2%) reported at least one philanthropic grant. The number of published articles increased by 328.6% between 2000 and 2019. While the volume increased during the study period, the proportion of articles with funding was lower in 2019 (55.6%) than it was in 2000 (87.5%; proportion difference: 31.9%; 95% CI: 16.7%-47.2%). This study highlights the continued funding limitations in this field despite a growing volume of research.

Legal Liability for Returning Firearms to Suicidal Persons Who Voluntarily Surrender Them in 50 US States.

Temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal persons is a strategy to reduce the incidence of suicide deaths. We discuss a barrier to the effective operation of voluntary temporary firearm transfer laws: the dearth of guidance on the liability for returning firearms to persons who voluntarily surrender them. We examine the laws of all 50 US states that regulate temporary surrenders of firearms and evaluate whether any provisions govern liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms.Although 14 states create background check exceptions to permit temporary transfers of firearms from an owner to family, friends, retailers, or law enforcement, no states prescribe procedures for returning those firearms.ability for returning the firearms to people who voluntarily surrendered them.We recommend amending state laws to clarify the process and liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms to the original owner. Such amendments would be intended to mitigate the potential chilling effect that lack of clarity and presumption of liability may impose on efficiently reducing firearm access to protect firearm owners at risk for suicide.

Variation in State Laws on Access to Civil Protection Orders for Adolescents Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence.

PURPOSE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent among adolescents. Civil protection orders (CPOs) are the most common legal remedy used by individuals experiencing IPV to prevent recurrence. However, laws on whether adolescents can access CPOs vary by state. We assessed the landscape of state legislation regarding adolescents' access to CPOs for IPV. METHODS: We systematically assessed statutes across all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia for 5 indicators: whether minors can be granted CPOs, whether minors can file on their own behalf, whether dating relationships are eligible, definitions of abuse qualifying for CPOs, and whether a CPO prohibits firearm possession and requires surrender of firearms. RESULTS: A total of 48 states (94%) explicitly allow minors to obtain CPOs. Fourteen states (27%) explicitly allow minors to file for a CPO on their own behalf. Forty-four states (86%) recognize dating relationships as qualifying relationships for a CPO. A CPO may be issued for physical violence in all 51 states (100%), sexual violence in 46 states (90%), threats of physical or sexual violence in 47 states (92%), stalking in 44 states (86%), and psychological/emotional violence in 28 states (55%). In 22 states (43%), an individual subject to a CPO is prohibited from possessing firearms and is required to surrender firearms they already have. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant variation in states' CPO statutes related to adolescent IPV. Improvements in legislation that reduce the barriers to legal relief for those experiencing violence can be an important part of a comprehensive solution to reducing IPV among adolescents.

Violence Perpetration Among Patients Hospitalized for Unintentional and Assault-Related Firearm Injury: A Case-Control Study and a Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based violence intervention programs typically focus on patients whose firearm injury occurred through interpersonal violence (assault). Knowledge of violence perpetration by victims of unintentional (accidental) firearm injury is limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine violence perpetration before and after a patient becomes hospitalized for firearm injury according to injury intent (intentional [assault] or unintentional [accidental]). DESIGN: A case-control study and a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Hospitals in Washington. PATIENTS: Persons aged 15 years or older hospitalized for a firearm injury, other injuries, or a noninjury reason from 2006 to 2007. MEASUREMENTS: In the case-control study, the odds of violence-related arrest from 2001 through hospitalization by injury intent among 3 groups were compared. In the cohort study, the rates of violence-related arrest from hospitalization through 2011 by injury intent among 3 groups were compared. RESULTS: Patients with unintentional firearm injuries (n = 180) were more likely than those with other unintentional injuries (n = 62 795; odds ratio [OR], 2.01 [95% CI, 1.31 to 3.09]) and no injuries (n = 172 830; OR, 3.43 [CI, 2.22 to 5.32]) to have been arrested for a violent crime before hospitalization. Prior violence-related arrest did not differ between patients with assault-related firearm injuries (n = 339) and those with other assault-related injuries (n = 2342; OR, 1.10 [CI, 0.84 to 1.46]). During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of violence-related arrest for patients with unintentional and assault-related firearm injuries was 10% and 15% (subhazard ratio, 1.88 [CI, 1.11 to 3.17] and 1.61 [CI, 1.08 to 2.44]), respectively, compared with 1% for those without injuries. LIMITATION: Exclusion of self-inflicted injuries, misclassification of intent, and ascertainment bias. CONCLUSION: Some firearm injuries classified as accidental may indicate involvement in the cycle of violence and present an opportunity for intervention. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: City of Seattle and the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund.

Firearm-related hospitalization and risk for subsequent violent injury, death, or crime perpetration: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Risk for violent victimization or crime perpetration after firearm-related hospitalization (FRH) must be determined to inform the need for future interventions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk for subsequent violent injury, death, or crime perpetration among patients with an FRH, those hospitalized for noninjury reasons, and the general population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: All hospitals in Washington. PATIENTS: Patients with an FRH and a random sample of those with a non-injury-related hospitalization in 2006 to 2007 (index hospitalization). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes included subsequent FRH, firearm-related death, and the combined outcome of firearm- or violence-related arrest ascertained through 2011. RESULTS: Among patients with an index FRH (n = 613), rates of subsequent FRH, firearm-related death, and firearm- or violence-related arrest were 329 (95% CI, 142 to 649), 100 (CI, 21 to 293), and 4221 (CI, 3352 to 5246) per 100 000 person-years, respectively. Compared with the general population, standardized incidence ratios among patients with an index FRH were 30.1 (CI, 14.9 to 61.0) for a subsequent FRH and 7.3 (CI, 2.4 to 22.9) for firearm-related death. In survival analyses that accounted for competing risks, patients with an index FRH were at greater risk for subsequent FRH (subhazard ratio [sHR], 21.2 [CI, 7.0 to 64.0]), firearm-related death (sHR, 4.3 [CI, 1.3 to 14.1]), and firearm- or violence-related arrest (sHR, 2.7 [CI, 2.0 to 3.5]) than those with a non-injury-related index hospitalization. LIMITATION: Lack of information on whether patients continued to reside in Washington during follow-up may have introduced outcome misclassification. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization for a firearm-related injury is associated with a heightened risk for subsequent violent victimization or crime perpetration. Further research at the intersection of clinical care, the criminal justice system, and public health to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions delivered to survivors of firearm-related injury is warranted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Seattle City Council and University of Washington Royalty Research Fund.