Dataset Information

Beliefs Among Veteran Firearm Owners Regarding Whether Clinicians Should Discuss Firearm Safety With Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Veterans are at increased risk of suicide, and guidelines recommend assessing firearm access and counseling to reduce access among patients with elevated suicide risk. How veterans view such discussions is critical to the effectiveness of these interactions.

Objective

To assess whether veteran firearm owners believe clinicians should deliver firearm counseling when patients or their family members are being cared for in specific clinical contexts that suggest heightened risk of firearm injury.

Design, setting, and participants

In this cross-sectional study, data were from a probability-based online survey of self-identified veterans who reported owning at least 1 firearm (National Firearms Survey, July 1 to August 31, 2019) and were weighted to generate nationally representative estimates. Data were analyzed from June 2022 to March 2023.

Main outcomes and measures

Participants were asked, "As part of routine care, should physicians and/or other health care professionals talk with their patients about firearms and firearm safety if their patient or their patient's family member (is at risk of suicide; has mental health or behavioral problems; is abusing or addicted to alcohol or drugs; is a victim of domestic violence; has Alzheimer's disease or another dementia; or is going through a hard time)." Response options included "No," "Yes, sometimes," and "Yes, always." In addition, responses were dichotomized as "Yes, at least sometimes" and "No."

Results

Of 4030 adults who completed the survey (65% completion rate), 678 (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [13.1] years; 638 [92.9%] male) identified as veteran firearm owners. Across the 6 clinical contexts, support for clinicians "at least sometimes" discussing firearm safety as part of routine care ranged from 73.4% (95% CI, 69.1%-77.3%) when someone is "going through a hard time" to 88.2% (95% CI, 84.8%-90.9%) when someone has "mental health or behavioral problems." When a patient or family member is at risk for suicide, 79.4% (95% CI, 75.5%-82.8%) of veteran firearm owners responded that clinicians should "at least sometimes" discuss firearms and firearm safety.

Conclusions and relevance

This study's findings suggest that most veteran firearm owners believe that clinicians should provide firearm counseling during routine care when a patient or family member is at heightened risk of firearm injury. These findings belie concerns that discussing firearm access with veteran firearm owners is an unacceptable practice.

SUBMITTER: Aunon FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10311384 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Beliefs Among Veteran Firearm Owners Regarding Whether Clinicians Should Discuss Firearm Safety With Patients.

Aunon Frances M FM Azrael Deborah D Simonetti Joseph A JA Miller Matthew M

JAMA network open 20230601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Veterans are at increased risk of suicide, and guidelines recommend assessing firearm access and counseling to reduce access among patients with elevated suicide risk. How veterans view such discussions is critical to the effectiveness of these interactions.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether veteran firearm owners believe clinicians should deliver firearm counseling when patients or their family members are being cared for in specific clinical contexts that suggest heightened ...[more]

PMID: 37382951

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although shared decision making requires clinicians to discuss the patient's values and preferences, little is known about the extent to which this occurs with surrogates in ICUs. We sought to assess whether and how clinicians talk with surrogates about incapacitated patients' preferences and values.Prospective, cross-sectional study.Five ICUs of two hospitals.Fifty-four physicians and 159 surrogates for 71 patients.We audio-recorded 71 conferences in which clinicians and surrogates discussed life-sustaining treatment decisions for an incapacitated patient near the end of life. Two coders independently coded each instance in which clinicians or surrogates discussed the patient's previously expressed treatment preferences or values. They subcoded for values that are commonly important to patients near the end of life. They also coded treatment recommendations by clinicians that incorporated the patient's preferences or values.In 30% of conferences, there was no discussion about the patient's previously expressed preferences or values. In 37%, clinicians and surrogates discussed both the patient's treatment preferences and values. In the remaining 33%, clinicians and surrogates discussed either the patient's treatment preferences or values, but not both. In more than 88% of conferences, there was no conversation about the patient's values regarding autonomy and independence, emotional well-being and relationships, physical function, cognitive function, or spirituality. On average, 3.8% (SD, 4.3; range, 0-16%) of words spoken pertained to patient preferences or values.In roughly a third of ICU family conferences for patients at high risk of death, neither clinicians nor surrogates discussed patients' preferences or values about end-of-life decision making. In less than 12% of conferences did participants address values of high importance to most patients, such as cognitive and physical function. Interventions are needed to ensure patients' values and preferences are elicited and integrated into end-of-life decisions in ICUs.

Project description:BackgroundThe requirement to obtain written informed consent may undermine the potential of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to improve evidence-based care. This requirement could compromise trials statistical power or even force it to close them down prematurely. However, recent data from the U.S. and Spain suggest that a majority of the public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present manuscript assesses whether this view is shared by patients.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing 2 drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. This web-based survey was conducted in May 2016. Two-thousand and eight adults who were representative of the Spanish population participated in the survey (response rate: 61%). Of these 2008 respondents, 338 indicated that they had been diagnosed with hypertension and were being treated with prescription medicines for this condition at the time of responding to the survey. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification.ResultsOverall, 74% of the 338 patient respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, general notification received significantly more support (30.6%-44.7%) than verbal consent (13.3%-17.6%). 43% of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.ConclusionsAs in the survey of the general public, more patients endorsed written consent than the alternative option. However, two factors suggest that a different approach to written consent should be investigated for low-risk pRCTs: a) a substantial minority of respondents supported general notification, b) data from the US have shown that most patients who prefer written consent are willing to forego it if obtaining written consent makes the trial too difficult to be conducted; and c) 2016 CIOMS guidelines endorse waivers of consent when the trial fulfills specific conditions. Surveys in other EU countries are needed to assess what patients believe towards pRCTs. If similar results to that reported in this study are found, it is foreseeable that with educational efforts, general notification could be an acceptable and widespread approach to the conduct of low-risk pRCTs.

Project description:ImportanceGiven the dangers that firearms in the home pose to children, it is critical to engage parents in effective firearm safety counseling. This requires a broader understanding of how the presence of children in the home is associated with motivations surrounding gun ownership.ObjectiveTo examine the association of having children in the home and gun owners' attitudes and beliefs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional survey study analyzed data from the National Lawful Use of Guns Survey conducted in 2019. A representative sample of 3698 adult gun owners nationwide were randomly invited to participate, with a 56.5% survey response rate. Survey responses were weighted to account for survey nonresponse and selection bias, and comparison groups were matched by age. Statistical analysis was performed in 2020.Main outcomes and measuresReasons for gun ownership, symbolic meaning of guns, and attitudes toward gun policies.ResultsOf the 2086 respondents, 383 (18.4%) had children in the home, 68.7% (95% CI, 66.4%-71.0%) were male, 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.7%) were Black, 76.3% (95% CI, 73.8%-78.6%) were White, 79.4% (95% CI, 77.5%-81.2%) were living in metropolitan areas, 51.3% (95% CI, 48.9%-53.8%) identified as Republican; 34.7% (95% CI, 32.6%-36.9%) were aged 60 years or older. Despite the majority of respondents feeling safe in their local communities (respondents with children: 93.4% [95% CI,: 89.3%-96.0%]; without children: 88.9% [95% CI, 87.0%- 90.6%]), 92.3% (95% CI, 87.0%-95.6%) of respondents with children stated the primary reason for gun ownership was to protect their family, compared with 68.6% (95% CI, 65.2%-71.8%) of respondents without children. On logistic regression analysis, having children in the home remained an independent factor associated with reasons for gun ownership. Gun owners with children were more likely than those without children to feel that guns make them feel more valuable to their family (23.5% [95% CI, 18.9%-28.8%] vs 17.0% [95% CI, 15.0%-19.2%]). Among those with children, 35.2% (95% CI, 30.0%-40.8%) believed gun laws should be more strict compared with 40.7% (95% CI, 38.1%- 43.3%) of those without children.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that acknowledging parental motivations for gun ownership is a pivotal component of educational efforts toward firearm injury prevention. These findings can guide clinicians to engage in effective individual counseling and community level efforts to reduce pediatric gun injuries.

Project description:RATIONALE:The high prevalence of household firearms in the U.S. has ignited a growing body of research seeking to understand its health consequences. While a large number of studies examine the impact of firearm availability on health risks of gun owners in the household, relatively little attention is given to whether and how in-home firearm access may shape psychological outcomes among children of gun owners. OBJECTIVE:This study examined whether and how in-home firearm access is associated with adolescents' depressive symptoms. Given a strong social/cultural association between masculinity and gun possession as well as stark gender differences in perceptions of safety and attitudes toward firearms, this study also investigated whether this association differs for male and female adolescents. METHODS:Participants were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) (n = 14,013). This study used random- and fixed-effects regression analyses as well as propensity-score matching models in order to reduce the chances of bias due to individual-level heterogeneity. RESULTS:The present study showed that gaining access to guns at home was significantly related to increased depressive symptoms among children of gun owners, even after accounting for both observed and unobserved individual characteristics. Both fixed-effects and propensity-score matching models yielded consistent results. In addition, the observed association between in-home firearm access and depression was more pronounced for female adolescents. Finally, this study found suggestive evidence that the perceptions of safety, especially about school (but not neighborhood), are an important mechanism linking in-home firearm access to adolescent depression. CONCLUSION:As a substantial proportion of U.S. adolescents reported in-home firearm access, the findings of this study suggest that scholars and policymakers must seriously consider mental as well as physical health consequences related to household access to firearms among children of gun owners.

Dataset Information

Beliefs Among Veteran Firearm Owners Regarding Whether Clinicians Should Discuss Firearm Safety With Patients.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Beliefs Among Veteran Firearm Owners Regarding Whether Clinicians Should Discuss Firearm Safety With Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets