Search

AimsFirearm purchasing increased within the U.S. during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. While rates of firearm ownership and suicide are elevated among women Veterans compared to women non-Veterans, no studies have examined if and how firearm beliefs and behaviors changed among women Veterans during the pandemic. We examined women Veterans' changes in firearm beliefs and engagement in firearm behaviors during the early pandemic era.Method3,000 post-9/11 era women Veterans were invited to participate in a survey. 501 respondents (May-December 2020) comprised the sample for this concurrent nested mixed-method analysis. Thematic analysis and log-binomial regression were used.Results13.88% (n = 69) of women Veterans in our sample reported changes in their firearm beliefs; 22.15% (n = 109) reported engaging in firearm behaviors. The most prevalent reported behaviors were making household firearms more accessible (16.13%) and purchasing ammunition (11.97%). Smaller percentages reported carrying a firearm more frequently (6.71%), loading previously unloaded firearms (5.69%), or purchasing a firearm (4.24%). Thematic analysis suggested firearm behaviors were likely driven by a perceived increased need to protect oneself, family, and property due to: (1) uncertainties brought on by the pandemic; (2) pandemic-related threats necessitating self-defense, preparedness, and self-sufficiency; (3) political, social, and racial unrest and protests. PTSD symptom severity and military sexual assault history were associated with higher prevalence of changes in firearm beliefs and engagement in firearm behaviors during the pandemic.DiscussionConsideration of women Veterans' prior experiences and pandemic-related factors may be necessary to contextualize firearm discussions and inform future research. Given associations of military sexual assault and PTSD symptoms with firearm beliefs and behaviors, it may be crucial to ensure that such discussion are trauma-informed.

AimsFirearms have become an increasingly common method of suicide among women Veterans, yet this population has rarely been a focus in firearm suicide prevention research. Limited knowledge is available regarding the preferences, experiences, or needs of women Veterans with respect to firearm lethal means counseling (LMC), an evidence-based suicide prevention strategy. Understanding is necessary to optimize delivery for this population.MethodOur sample included forty women Veterans with lifetime suicidal ideation or suicide attempt(s) and firearm access following military separation, all enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration. Participants were interviewed regarding their perspectives, experiences, and preferences for firearm LMC. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive thematic analysis.ResultsWomen Veterans' firearm and firearm LMC perspectives were shaped by their military service histories and identity, military sexual trauma, spouses/partners, children, rurality, and experiences with suicidal ideation and attempts. Half reported they had not engaged in firearm LMC previously. For those who had, positive aspects included a trusting, caring relationship, direct communication of rationale for questions, and discussion of exceptions to confidentiality. Negative aspects included conversations that felt impersonal, not sufficiently comprehensive, and Veterans' fears regarding implications of disclosure, which impeded conversations. Women Veterans' preferences for future firearm LMC encompassed providers communicating why such conversations are important, how they should be framed (e.g., around safety and genuine concern), what they should entail (e.g., discussing concerns regarding disclosure), whom should initiate (e.g., trusted caring provider) and where they should occur (e.g., safe spaces, women-specific groups comprised of peers).DiscussionThis study is the first to examine women Veterans' experiences with, and preferences for, firearm LMC. Detailed inquiry of the nuances of how, where, why, and by whom firearms are stored and used may help to facilitate firearm LMC with women Veterans.

Background Reducing access to lethal means is one of the few empirically supported approaches for lowering suicide rates, and safe firearms storage practices have been associated with reduced risk of death by suicide. Although there is substantial opportunity for primary care to assist in addressing lethal means with veterans, approaches to intervention and educating staff are not well documented. We sought to 1) describe development of an education program for primary care teams to help them discuss firearms storage safety (FSS) with veterans during primary care visits; and 2) conduct a preliminary evaluation of the pilot education program. Methods We used an iterative process involving veterans and primary care staff stakeholders to develop program content, format, and supplemental materials. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze data from focus groups and individual interviews. Following piloting of the program with 71 staff members in two primary care clinics, we analyzed pre- and post-training participant surveys of program satisfaction and attitudes comfort related to firearms safety discussions. Results During the development phase, 68 veterans and 107 staff members participated in four veteran focus groups and four primary care focus groups, respectively, and/or individual interviews. The program that was developed, “‘ Just in Case’: Discussing means safety with veterans at elevated risk for suicide,” addresses knowledge and skills learning objectives, and includes video demonstrations and skills practice. Survey data obtained just prior to the pilot training sessions showed low self-reported rates of discussing firearms safety with veterans who may be at elevated risk for suicide. Immediate post-training data showed generally high satisfaction with the program and significant improvements in participant self-reported ratings of the importance of, and comfort with FSS. Conclusions This interactive knowledge and skill-based means safety curriculum shows promise as a means for educating primary care staff to deliver messaging about firearms safety to veterans. Additional research is needed to refine and evaluate impacts of this or similar training programs on clinician and veteran behaviors over time.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE:Male veterans ages 55-74 comprise a disproportionate number of suicide deaths among United States veterans, for whom a majority of suicides are firearm-related. Little is known about the firearm-related experiences and beliefs of veterans, which could be informative for firearm-related lethal means safety interventions. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify themes relevant to developing such interventions among older male veterans. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with seventeen United States male veterans, ages 50-70, who were eligible to receive Veterans Health Administration services, and were current or former firearm owners or users. Transcripts were analyzed via thematic analysis using an inductive approach. RESULTS:Six themes were identified: 1) Firearm experiences were usually facilitated by male family members and occurred at an early age; 2) Safety lessons during early firearm encounters focused on preventing unintentional injuries through safe firearm handling and using "common sense;" 3) Firearms serve an important social function across veterans' lifespans (e.g., hunting with friends); 4) Veterans perceive firearms as useful for protection; 5) Veterans believe that not everyone should have access to firearms, and some described scenarios in which they acted to limit others' access during unsafe situations; and 6) Veterans have preferences for who is involved in firearm safety discussions. CONCLUSIONS:We identified themes relevant to developing firearm-specific lethal means safety interventions among older male veterans. Findings suggest potential obstacles (e.g., sociocultural value of firearms) to affecting changes in firearm behaviors, and factors that could potentially facilitate interventions (e.g., family involvement). Consideration of these findings may be important for developing personalized, effective interventions for this population.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230135.].

Abstract Background Rates of firearm suicide have increased among women Veterans. Discussing firearm access and reducing access to lethal means of suicide when suicide risk is heightened are central tenets of suicide prevention, as is tailoring suicide prevention strategies to specific populations. While research has begun to explore how to optimize firearm lethal means safety counseling with women Veterans, there is limited knowledge of women Veterans' perspectives on including their intimate partners in such efforts. This gap is notable since many women Veterans have access to firearms owned by other household members. Understanding women Veterans’ experiences and perspectives regarding including their partners in firearm lethal means safety conversations can provide important information for tailoring firearm lethal means safety counseling for women Veterans. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 women Veterans with current or prior household firearm access. Interview questions focused on the roles of women Veterans’ partners in household firearm access and storage, as well as women Veterans’ perspectives regarding including intimate partners in firearm lethal means safety counseling. Inductive thematic analysis was performed. Results Three relational types characterized how household firearms were discussed between women Veterans and their partners: collaborative, devalued, and deferential. These types were distinguished via women Veterans’ agency in decision-making related to household firearms, partners’ receptivity to women Veterans’ mental health or trauma histories, and willingness (or lack thereof) of partners to change household firearm access and storage considering such histories. Intimate partner violence was common in the devalued relational subtype. Conclusions Findings extend knowledge regarding the context of women Veterans’ household firearm access, including relational dynamics between women Veterans and their partners. The acceptability, feasibility, challenges, and facilitators of including women Veterans’ partners in firearm lethal means safety efforts likely vary for each relational type. For example, in dyads with a collaborative dynamic, incorporating partners may create opportunities for increased firearm safety, whereas including partners in devalued dynamics may present unique challenges. Research is warranted to determine optimal methods of navigating firearm lethal means safety counseling in the presence of each relational dynamic.

Abstract Background While the majority of veteran suicides involve firearms, no contemporary data describing firearm ownership among US veterans are available. This study uses survey data to describe the prevalence of firearm ownership among a nationally representative sample of veterans, as well as veterans’ reasons for firearm ownership. Methods A cross-sectional, nationally representative web-based survey conducted in 2015. Results Nearly half of all veterans own one or more firearms (44.9%, 95% CI 41.3–48.6%), with male veterans more commonly owning firearms than do female veterans (47.2%, 95% CI 43.4–51.0% versus 24.4%, 95%CI 15.6–36.1%). Most veteran firearm owners own both handguns and long guns (56.5%, 95% CI 51.1–61.8%); a majority cite protection as a primary reason for firearm ownership (63.1%, 95% CI 58.2–67.8%). Conclusions The current study is the first to provide detailed, nationally representative information about firearm ownership among U.S. veterans. Better understanding firearm ownership among veterans can usefully inform ongoing suicide prevention efforts aiming to facilitate lethal means safety among vulnerable veterans during at-risk periods.

Introduction: Safe firearm storage is associated with a lower risk of firearm-related injury and death. Although providing firearm locking devices is a key component of firearm safety interventions, little is known about the types and characteristics of devices preferred by firearm users or others who make decisions about firearm storage. The aim of this study was to describe preferences for firearm locking devices and device features among firearm safety event participants. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in the State of Washington in 2016 that assessed participants’ preferences for five firearm locking devices (eg, trigger lock) and seven device features (eg, quick access). We categorized respondents (n=401) as adults in households with 1) all firearms locked, 2) at least one unlocked firearm, and 3) no firearms. We analyzed data in 2017. Results: Device ownership and feature preferences varied substantially but were similar across the three household categories. Of those residing with unlocked firearms, 84% reported they would consider using or definitely use a lock box, whereas 11% reported they would never use a trigger lock. Additionally, of those residing with unlocked firearms, 80% and 89% reported that the ability to lock a firearm while loaded and unlock it quickly were, respectively, “very important” or “absolutely essential.” Conclusion: Participants had differing preferences for firearm locking devices and device features, although preferences were largely similar across households with locked, unlocked, or no firearms. At least eight in ten participants reported “great importance” regarding the ability to lock a firearm while loaded and unlock it quickly, which is likely related to perceptions about the utility of safely stored firearms for household protection. Designing firearm safety interventions to match the needs and preferences of those who make firearm storage decisions may improve their effectiveness.

Objectives: To determine the frequency of loaded handgun carrying among US adult handgun owners, characterize those who carry, and examine concealed carrying by state concealed carry laws., Methods: Using a nationally representative survey of US adults in 2015, we asked handgun owners (n = 1444) about their past-30-day carrying behavior., Results: Among surveyed handgun owners, 24% (95% confidence interval[CI] = 21%, 26%) carried loaded handguns monthly, of whom 35% (95% CI = 29%, 41%) did so daily; 82% (95% CI = 77%, 86%) carried primarily for protection. The proportion of handgun owners who carried concealed loaded handguns in the past 30 days was 21% (95% CI = 12%, 35%) in unrestricted states, 25% (95% CI = 21%, 29%) in shall issue-no discretion states, 20% (95% CI = 16%, 24%) in shall issue-limited discretion states, and 9% (95% CI = 6%, 15%) in may-issue states., Conclusions: We estimate that 9 million US adult handgun owners carry loaded handguns monthly, 3 million do so every day, and most report protection as the main carrying reason. Proportionally fewer handgun owners carry concealed loaded handguns in states that allow issuing authorities substantial discretion in granting carrying permits.

Objectives: We investigated whether stricter state-level firearm legislation was associated with lower hospital discharge rates for nonfatal firearm injuries., Methods: We estimated discharge rates for hospitalized and emergency department-treated nonfatal firearm injuries in 18 states in 2010 and used negative binomial regression to determine whether strength of state firearm legislation was independently associated with total nonfatal firearm injury discharge rates., Results: We identified 26 744 discharges for nonfatal firearm injuries. The overall age-adjusted discharge rate was 19.0 per 100 000 person-years (state range = 3.3-36.6), including 7.9 and 11.1 discharges per 100 000 for hospitalized and emergency department-treated injuries, respectively. In models adjusting for differences in state sociodemographic characteristics and economic conditions, states in the strictest tertile of legislative strength had lower discharge rates for total (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44, 0.82), assault-related (IRR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.99), self-inflicted (IRR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.24), and unintentional (IRR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.84) nonfatal firearm injuries., Conclusions: There is significant variation in state-level hospital discharge rates for nonfatal firearm injuries, and stricter state firearm legislation is associated with lower discharge rates for such injuries.

OBJECTIVE To assess racial differences in diabetes processes and intermediate outcomes of care in an internal medicine, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) group practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,457 adults with diabetes receiving care from 89 medical providers within a PCMH-designated academic practice between 1 July 2009 and 31 July 2010. We used mixed models to assess independent associations between patient race (non-Hispanic white or black) and 1) receipt of processes of care (A1C and LDL testing, foot and retinal examination, and influenza and pneumococcal vaccination) and 2) achievement of intermediate outcomes (LDL <100 mg/dL, blood pressure [BP] <140/90 mmHg, A1C <7.0% [<53 mmol/mol], and A1C >9.0% [>75 mmol/mol]), controlling for sociodemographic factors, health status, treatment intensity, and clinical continuity. RESULTS Compared with non-Hispanic white patients, black patients were younger, were more often single, had lower educational attainment, and were less likely to have commercial insurance. In unadjusted analyses, fewer black patients received a retinal examination and influenza vaccination during the study period or any lifetime pneumococcal vaccination (P < 0.05 [all comparisons]). Fewer black patients achieved an LDL <100 mg/dL, BP <140/90 mmHg, or A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol), while more black patients had an A1C >9.0% (>75 mmol/mol) (P < 0.05 [all comparisons]). In multivariable models, black patients were less likely to receive A1C testing (odds ratio [OR] 0.57 [95% CI 0.34-0.95]) or influenza vaccination (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.57-0.99]) or to achieve an LDL <100 mg/dL (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.55-0.99]) or BP <140/90 mmHg (OR 0.64 [95% CI 0.49-0.84]). CONCLUSIONS Racial differences in processes and intermediate outcomes of diabetes care were present within this PCMH-designated practice, controlling for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment factors.