Racial and ethnic differences in the effects of state firearm laws: a systematic review subgroup analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Rosanna Smart, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Pierrce Holmes, Terry L Schell, Andrew R Morral
{"title":"Racial and ethnic differences in the effects of state firearm laws: a systematic review subgroup analysis.","authors":"Rosanna Smart, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Pierrce Holmes, Terry L Schell, Andrew R Morral","doi":"10.1186/s40621-023-00477-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite growing evidence about how state-level firearm regulations affect overall rates of injury and death, little is known about whether potential harms or benefits of firearm laws are evenly distributed across demographic subgroups. In this systematic review, we synthesized available evidence on the extent to which firearm policies produce differential effects by race and ethnicity on injury, recreational or defensive gun use, and gun ownership or purchasing behaviors.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>We searched 13 databases for English-language studies published between 1995 and February 28, 2023 that estimated a relationship between firearm policy in the USA and one of eight outcomes, included a comparison group, evaluated time series data, and provided estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. We used pre-specified criteria to evaluate the quality of inference and causal effect identification. By policy and outcome, we compared policy effects across studies and across racial/ethnic groups using two different ways to express effect sizes: incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and rate differences. Of 182 studies that used quasi-experimental methods to evaluate firearm policy effects, only 15 estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. These 15 eligible studies provided 57 separate policy effect comparisons across race/ethnicity, 51 of which evaluated interpersonal violence. In IRR terms, there was little consistent evidence that policies produced significantly different effects for different racial/ethnic groups. However, because of different baseline homicide rates, similar relative effects for some policies (e.g., universal background checks) translated into significantly greater absolute differences in homicide rates among Black compared to white victims.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current literature does not support strong conclusions about whether state firearm policies differentially benefit or harm particular racial/ethnic groups. This largely reflects limited attention to these questions in the literature and challenges with detecting such effects given existing data availability and statistical power. Findings also emphasize the need for additional rigorous research that adopts a more explicit focus on testing for racial differences in firearm policy effects and that assesses the quality of race/ethnicity information in firearm injury and crime datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":37379,"journal":{"name":"Injury Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10722776/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-023-00477-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite growing evidence about how state-level firearm regulations affect overall rates of injury and death, little is known about whether potential harms or benefits of firearm laws are evenly distributed across demographic subgroups. In this systematic review, we synthesized available evidence on the extent to which firearm policies produce differential effects by race and ethnicity on injury, recreational or defensive gun use, and gun ownership or purchasing behaviors.

Main body: We searched 13 databases for English-language studies published between 1995 and February 28, 2023 that estimated a relationship between firearm policy in the USA and one of eight outcomes, included a comparison group, evaluated time series data, and provided estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. We used pre-specified criteria to evaluate the quality of inference and causal effect identification. By policy and outcome, we compared policy effects across studies and across racial/ethnic groups using two different ways to express effect sizes: incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and rate differences. Of 182 studies that used quasi-experimental methods to evaluate firearm policy effects, only 15 estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. These 15 eligible studies provided 57 separate policy effect comparisons across race/ethnicity, 51 of which evaluated interpersonal violence. In IRR terms, there was little consistent evidence that policies produced significantly different effects for different racial/ethnic groups. However, because of different baseline homicide rates, similar relative effects for some policies (e.g., universal background checks) translated into significantly greater absolute differences in homicide rates among Black compared to white victims.

Conclusions: The current literature does not support strong conclusions about whether state firearm policies differentially benefit or harm particular racial/ethnic groups. This largely reflects limited attention to these questions in the literature and challenges with detecting such effects given existing data availability and statistical power. Findings also emphasize the need for additional rigorous research that adopts a more explicit focus on testing for racial differences in firearm policy effects and that assesses the quality of race/ethnicity information in firearm injury and crime datasets.

各州枪支法律效果的种族和民族差异:系统性回顾分组分析。
背景:尽管有越来越多的证据表明州一级的枪支法规如何影响总体伤亡率,但对于枪支法律的潜在危害或益处是否在人口亚群中均匀分布却知之甚少。在这篇系统性综述中,我们综合了现有证据,说明枪支政策在伤害、娱乐性或防卫性用枪以及拥有或购买枪支行为方面对不同种族和族裔产生不同影响的程度:我们在 13 个数据库中检索了 1995 年至 2023 年 2 月 28 日期间发表的英语研究,这些研究估计了美国枪支政策与八种结果之一之间的关系,包括一个比较组,评估了时间序列数据,并提供了按种族或族裔区分的估计政策效果。我们使用预先规定的标准来评估推论和因果效应识别的质量。按照政策和结果,我们使用两种不同的方法来表示效应大小:发病率比(IRR)和比率差异,比较了不同研究和不同种族/族裔群体的政策效应。在 182 项使用准实验方法评估枪支政策效果的研究中,只有 15 项研究估计了按种族或民族区分的政策效果。这 15 项符合条件的研究提供了 57 项不同种族/族裔的政策效果比较,其中 51 项研究对人际暴力进行了评估。就 IRR 而言,几乎没有一致的证据表明政策对不同种族/族裔群体产生了显著不同的效果。然而,由于杀人案的基线发生率不同,一些政策(如普遍背景调查)的相对效果相似,但黑人与白人受害者的杀人案发生率的绝对差异明显更大:目前的文献并不支持关于州枪支政策对特定种族/民族群体是有利还是有害的有力结论。这在很大程度上反映了文献对这些问题的关注有限,以及在现有数据可用性和统计能力条件下检测此类影响所面临的挑战。研究结果还强调,有必要开展更多严格的研究,更明确地重点测试枪支政策效果的种族差异,并评估枪支伤害和犯罪数据集中种族/族裔信息的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Injury Epidemiology
Injury Epidemiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Injury Epidemiology is dedicated to advancing the scientific foundation for injury prevention and control through timely publication and dissemination of peer-reviewed research. Injury Epidemiology aims to be the premier venue for communicating epidemiologic studies of unintentional and intentional injuries, including, but not limited to, morbidity and mortality from motor vehicle crashes, drug overdose/poisoning, falls, drowning, fires/burns, iatrogenic injury, suicide, homicide, assaults, and abuse. We welcome investigations designed to understand the magnitude, distribution, determinants, causes, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and outcomes of injuries in specific population groups, geographic regions, and environmental settings (e.g., home, workplace, transport, recreation, sports, and urban/rural). Injury Epidemiology has a special focus on studies generating objective and practical knowledge that can be translated into interventions to reduce injury morbidity and mortality on a population level. Priority consideration will be given to manuscripts that feature contemporary theories and concepts, innovative methods, and novel techniques as applied to injury surveillance, risk assessment, development and implementation of effective interventions, and program and policy evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信