Nurses’ Perception of Firearm Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Firearm or gun violence has become a significant and ongoing public health crisis in the United States. There is little evidence of the current practices of nurses in assessing, screening, and counseling patients and families on firearm ownership and safety. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this exploratory qualitative study was to explore the attitudes, perceptions, and current practices in assessing, screening, and counseling gun ownership and safety among registered nurses, with a secondary aim of identifying the facilitators and barriers to implementing the practice. METHOD: An exploratory qualitative research study design was used. We recruited focus group participants via e-mail, social media blasts, referrals, and personal contact requests. Participants were interviewed using structured focus group questions via Zoom. Five focus groups included 32 registered and advanced practice nurses. The audio-recorded and transcribed data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified four key themes. First, there was a significant need to educate and train nurses in the assessment, screening, and counseling about firearm safety. Second, there was a need to extend this education to patients, families, and the community. Third, there was a need to advocate for the creation and implementation of policies. Fourth, there was a need to implement mental health assessment as a standard practice before owning a gun, which emerged as a potential solution. Additionally, we found a need to address barriers to assessment and counseling on gun use. The creation of state laws and organizational policies, along with the provision of current data, emerged as other facilitators for assessment, screening, and counseling among nurses about firearms use and safety. DISCUSSION: Ours is one of the first studies to explore attitudes and perceptions about gun ownership and current practices in gun safety assessment, screening, and counseling among registered nurses. The findings lay some foundation for a focused, multifaceted approach and interventions to address gun violence and safety concerns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".