MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411178950 · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.14443

Parental Firearm Storage and Their Teens’ Perceived Firearm Access in US Households

2025· article· en· W4411178950 sur OpenAlexaff
Katherine Hastings, Patrick M. Carter, Marc A. Zimmerman, Rebeccah L. Sokol

Notice bibliographique

RevueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGun Ownership and Violence Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Mots-clésComputer securityMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthForensic engineeringBusinessPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Importance: Firearm access increases fatal and nonfatal firearm injury risk among teens. Identifying parental firearm storage behaviors associated with teen access may inform efforts to prevent teen firearm injuries. Objective: To examine the associations between parent-reported household firearm storage behaviors and teen perceived access to firearms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used national survey data of US firearm-owning parents and their teens (aged 14 to 18 years) surveyed between June and July 2020, with a response rate of 31% for parents and 21% for teens. Analyses were conducted January to May 2024. Exposures: The number of firearms stored in the household as (1) unlocked, (2) loaded, (3) unlocked and loaded, and (4) unlocked or loaded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Teen perceived firearm access, overall and stratified by teen gender, parental education, and urbanicity. Survey-weighted logistic regression analyses assessed the associations between the number of firearms parents reported storing in each unsecured state (unlocked and loaded, unlocked, loaded, and unlocked or loaded) and teen perceived firearm access, overall and stratified by teen gender, parental education, and urbanicity (metropolitan vs nonmetropolitan). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were used to identify the firearm storage behaviors with the best ability to estimate teen perceived firearm access. Results: Analyses included 487 parent-teen dyad respondents. The mean (SE) ages of parents and teens were 46.6 (0.80) and 16.0 (0.12) years, respectively. Most parent respondents were male (58.1%; 95% CI, 50.3%-65.8%) and White (73.5%; 95% CI, 66.1%-80.9%), and most teen respondents were female (55.7%; 95% CI, 47.8%-63.6%) and White (69.5%; 95% CI, 61.8%-77.2%). All 4 unsecured firearm storage behaviors were associated with greater teen perceived firearm access (odds ratio [OR], 1.27-1.44; 95% CI, 0.99-2.10), but associations disappeared after restricting to those who stored at least 1 firearm unsecured (OR, 0.99-1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-1.89). The number of firearms stored unlocked performed the best in estimating teen perceived access to firearms in US households (AUROC, 65.7; 95% CI, 61.4-70.1), regardless of teen gender, parental education, and urbanicity. However, sensitivity of this measure was universally low (range, 42%-64%). Additionally, 36.3% (95% CI, 23.6%-49.0%) of teens reported access to a firearm in households where all firearms were stored locked and unloaded. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that parent-reported firearm storage may be a poor estimator of teen perceived firearm access, regardless of teen gender, parental education, and urbanicity. Strictly focusing safety efforts on locked and unloaded firearm storage may not fully negate teen's perceptions that they can access and load household firearms. Storing additional firearms securely may not prevent teen access if at least 1 household firearm remains unlocked.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,070
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,392
Écart entre enseignants0,326 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJAMA Network OpenMême sujetGun Ownership and Violence ResearchTravaux en français237 207