The Association Between State Minimum Wage and Firearm Homicides, 2000-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Recent research has indicated an association between both poverty and income inequality and firearm homicides. Increased minimum wages may serve as a strategy for reducing firearm violence by increasing economic security among workers earning low wages and reducing the number of families living in poverty. This study aimed to examine the association between state minimum wage and firearm homicides in the U.S. between 2000 and 2020. METHODS: State minimum wage, obtained from Temple's Law Atlas and augmented by legal research, was conceptualized using the Kaitz Index. State-level homicide counts were obtained from 2000 to 2020 multiple-cause-of death mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System. Log-linear regressions were conducted to model the associations between state minimum wage and firearm homicides, stratifying by demographic groups. Analyses were conducted in 2023. RESULTS: A 1% point increase in a state's Kaitz Index was associated with a 1.3% (95% CI: -2.1% to -0.5%) decrease in a state's firearm homicide rate. When interacted with quartile of firearm ownership, the Kaitz Index was associated with decreases in firearm homicide in all except the lowest quartile. These findings were largely consistent across stratifications. CONCLUSIONS: Changing a state's minimum wage, whereby a full-time minimum wage worker's salary is closer to a state's median income, may be an option for reducing firearm homicides.

Analysis of social determinants of health and individual factors found in health equity frameworks: Applications to injury research.

INTRODUCTION: This research evaluated existing health equity frameworks as they relate to social determinants of health (SDOHs) and individual factors that may impact injury outcomes and identify gaps in coverage using the Healthy People (HP) 2030 key domains. METHODS: The study used a list of health equity frameworks sourced from previous literature. SDOHs and individual factors from each framework were identified and categorized into the Healthy People 2030 domains. Five injury topic areas were used as examples for how SDOHs and individual factors can be compared to injury topic-specific health disparities to identify health equity frameworks to apply to injury research. RESULTS: The study identified 59 SDOHs and individual factors from the list of 33 health equity frameworks. The number of SDOHs and individual factors identified varied by Healthy People 2030 domain: Neighborhood and Built Environment contained 16 (27.1%) SDOHs and individual actors, Social and Community Context contained 22 (37.3%), Economic Stability contained 10 (16.9%), Healthcare Access and Quality contained 10 (16.9%), and Education Access and Quality contained one (1.7%). Twenty-three (39.0%) SDOHs/individual factors related to traumatic brain injury, thirteen (22.0%) related to motor vehicle crashes and suicide, 11 (18.6%) related to drowning and older adult falls. Eight frameworks (24.2%) covered all HP 2030 key domains and may be applicable to injury topics. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating health equity into research is critical. Health equity frameworks can provide a way to systematically incorporate health equity into research. The findings from this study may be useful to health equity research by providing a resource to injury and other public health fields. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Health equity frameworks are a practical tool to guide injury research, translation, evaluation, and program implementation. The findings from this study can be used to guide the application of health equity frameworks in injury research for specific topic areas.

Health equity guiding frameworks and indices in injury: A review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: In early 2021, CDC released the CORE Health Equity Strategy, which resolves to integrate a comprehensive health equity approach to the work of the Agency. One priority of the Injury Center's Division of Injury Prevention is to move health equity research in injury forward. The purpose of this research is to perform an initial exploration of health equity guiding frameworks and indices to better understand which of these has been applied to injury research topics. METHODS: A PubMed and CINAHL search of meta-analysis and systematic review articles was conducted from January 1998 through April 2022. Articles of any type and additional frameworks/indices were also identified from staff knowledge of the literature. Books were also considered, where accessible. The following areas were reviewed for each resource: population addressed, guiding framework/index, other health equity variables, gaps identified, and whether the articles addressed an injury topic. FINDINGS: The PubMed/CINAHL search produced 230 articles, and an additional 29 articles and 8 books were added from previous knowledge of the literature, resulting in a total of 267 resources for review. There were 60 frameworks/indices compiled that were relevant to health equity. Out of all the resources, three reported on an injury topic and used the PROGRESS-Plus framework, the WHO Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework, and a social-ecological framework. CONCLUSIONS: This study found there were many frameworks/indices for measuring health equity; however, there were few injury-related meta-analysis and systematic review articles. Some frameworks/indices may be more appropriate than others for measuring health equity in injury topic areas, depending on which social determinants of health (SDOHs) they address. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Measuring health equity in injury and other public health research areas can help build a foundation of evidence. Moving forward, injury researchers can consider the frameworks/indices identified through this study in their health equity injury research.