Provider Perspectives on Addressing Firearm Safety with Older Adults in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic conditions, including mild cognitive impairment and depression, place older adults at high risk of firearm suicide. Approximately 40% of older adults have access to a firearm, and many do not store their firearms safely. However, firearm counseling occurs infrequently in clinical settings. Using by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) to conceptualize the decisional support needed by patients and their providers to facilitate firearm counseling, we explore provider perspectives on desired resources for addressing firearm safety with older adult patients. METHODS: From March - August 2022, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with primary care providers caring for older adults. We report deductive concepts as well as emergent themes. RESULTS: Major themes were identified from the three components of the ODSF; decisional needs, decision support and decisional outcomes. Themes included: provider self-efficacy to conduct firearm counseling, clinical workflow considerations, stories for change, patient diagnosis implications, and caregiver involvement. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for decision aids in the clinical setting that facilitate firearm counseling and promotes shared decision-making about firearm storage. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Implementing a decision aid in the clinical setting can improve provider self-efficacy to conduct firearm counseling and help reduce risk factors associated with firearm-related harm among older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".