MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391556196 · doi:10.2196/47444

Early Results of an Initiative to Assess Exposure to Firearm Violence in Ambulatory Care: Descriptive Analysis of Electronic Health Record Data

2024· article· en· W4391556196 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole Cook, Megan Hoopes, Frances M. Biel, Natalie A. Cartwright, Michelle Gordon, Marion R. Sills

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Office of the DirectorCommon FundNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedical emergencyAmbulatoryOccupational safety and healthHealth careMedicinePoison controlSuicide preventionElectronic health recordDescriptive statisticsInjury preventionEnvironmental healthPublic healthHuman factors and ergonomicsDescriptive researchInternet privacyNursingPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current research on firearm violence is largely limited to patients who received care in emergency departments or inpatient acute care settings or who died. This is because standardized disease classification codes for firearm injury only represent bodily trauma. As a result, research on pathways and health impacts of firearm violence is largely limited to people who experienced acute bodily trauma and does not include the estimated millions of individuals who were exposed to firearm violence but did not sustain acute injury. Assessing and collecting data on exposure to firearm violence in ambulatory care settings can expand research and more fully frame the public health issue. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who self-reported exposure to firearm violence during a behavioral health visit. METHODS: This study assessed early data from an initiative implemented in 2022 across a national network of ambulatory behavioral health centers to support trauma-informed care by integrating structured data fields on trauma exposure into an electronic health record behavioral health patient assessment form (SmartForm), as such variables are generally not included in standard outpatient medical records. We calculated descriptive statistics on clinic characteristics, patient demographics, and select clinical conditions among clinics that chose to implement the SmartForm and among patients who reported an exposure to firearm violence. Data on patient counts are limited to positive reports of exposure to firearm violence, and the representativeness of firearm exposure among all patients could not be calculated due to unknown variability in the implementation of the SmartForm. RESULTS: There were 323 of 629 (51%) clinics that implemented the SmartForm and reported at least 1 patient exposed to firearm violence. In the first 11 months of implementation, 3165 patients reported a recent or past exposure to firearm violence across the 323 clinics. Among patients reporting exposure, 52.7% (n=1669) were male, 38.8% (n=1229) were Black, 45.7% (n=1445) had posttraumatic stress disorder, 37.5% (n=1186) had a substance abuse disorder (other than nicotine), and 11.7% (n=371) had hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Current research on firearm violence using standardized data is limited to acute care settings and death data. Early results from an initiative across a large network of behavioral health clinics demonstrate that a high number of clinics chose to implement the SmartForm, resulting in thousands of patients reporting exposure to firearm violence. This study demonstrates that collecting standardized data on firearm violence exposure in ambulatory care settings is feasible. This study further demonstrates that resultant data from ambulatory settings can be used for meaningful analysis in describing populations affected by firearm violence. The results of this study hold promise for further collection of structured data on exposure to firearm violence in ambulatory settings.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207