Surgeon views on firearm safety counseling in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Firearms are commonplace in the United States, and one proposed strategy to decrease risk of firearm injury is to have physicians counsel their patients about safe firearm ownership. Current rates of firearm safety counseling by surgeons who care for injured people are unknown. METHODS: This study used an anonymous cross-sectional survey derived from previously published survey instruments and was piloted (n = 13) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (2022). The finalized survey was distributed using a quick response code during two sessions at the 2022 American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress. Eligible participants included the surgeons and surgical trainees who attended these sessions. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen individuals completed the survey (20% response rate), and a majority were male (n = 71 [62.3%]), attending surgeons (n = 108 [94.7%]), and specialized in acute care surgery (n = 72 [63.2%]). Few participants (n = 43 [37.7%]) reported counseling patients on firearm safety as part of their routine clinical practice; however, the majority (n = 102 [89.5%]) believed that surgeons should provide firearm safety counseling. Counseling rates did not vary significantly by age, sex, surgical specialty, or region of practice, but attitudes toward counseling did differ by firearm safety counseling practices ( p = 0.03) and region of practice (0.04). Noted barriers to counseling included lack of time (n = 47 [41.2%]), perceived lack of training (n = 43 [37.7%]), and lack of firearm knowledge/experience (n = 36 [31.6%]). CONCLUSION: Most surgeon respondents did not provide firearm safety counseling to their patients despite the fact the majority believed they should. This suggests that counseling interventions that do not solely rely on surgeons for implementation could increase the number of patients who receive firearm safety guidance during clinical encounters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.
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 | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".