Rising Rates of Adolescent Firearm Suicide and the Clinician's Role in Addressing Firearms.

Suicide is a leading cause of death of 10- to 19-year-olds in the United States.1 Firearms were used in 48% of suicides of 15- to 19-year-olds and in 38% of suicides of 10- to 14-year-olds in 2020.1 During the COVID-19 pandemic, gun sales surged, leading to increases in household firearm ownership,2 a known risk factor for suicide.3 There are many ways in which adolescents access firearms. Most commonly, adolescents encounter firearms owned by an adult in the home. One study showed that one-third of adolescents reported they could access a loaded household gun in less than 5 minutes, even in households where parents did not believe that their child could access a household firearm.4 Another study found that 39% of parents who reported that their children did not know the location of household guns, and 22% of parents who reported that their children had never handled a household gun, were contradicted by their children's reports.5Adolescents can legally own rifles or shotguns if gifted to them by a parent. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 922) prohibits possession of handguns by minors less than 18 years of age; however, there are no federal minimum age requirements for possession of long guns (shotguns, rifles).Social media contributes to adolescent gun culture. TikTok users have created and viewed popular videos about guns,6 including videos with instructions on building guns from hardware store materials or via 3D printing. Adolescents can purchase kits online to assemble fully functional handguns. No federal restrictions or background check requirements exist on who can purchase "ghost gun" kits.7Child and adolescent mental health providers often assess suicide risk with a screening tool such as the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, with a clinical assessment, or with a combination of both. Either way, the assessment should include asking about access to lethal means, including firearms. Many adolescent suicide attempts are impulsive; completed suicides may be prevented if access to firearms is limited during periods of crisis.8 However, many clinicians do not talk about firearms with patients even when clinically relevant.9 This may be due to assumptions that adolescents do not have access to firearms, or to lack of comfort with this topic. One study surveying medical residents reported the most common barriers to providing firearm counseling were not knowing how to ask about firearm access and not knowing how to respond to patients' answers about firearm access.9Once identifying an adolescent at risk for suicide, clinicians can intervene by providing evidenced-based interventions tailored to each situation. In this article, we present steps adapted from the BulletPoints Project for clinicians to intervene with adolescents at risk for firearm suicide.

Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016-2018: case details and respondent mortality.

BACKGROUND: Gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), implemented in California in 2016, temporarily prohibit individuals at high risk of violence from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition. We sought to describe the circumstances giving rise to GVROs issued 2016-2018, provide details about the GVRO process and quantify mortality outcomes for individuals subject to these orders ('respondents'). METHODS: For this cross-sectional description of GVRO respondents, 2016-2018, we abstracted case details from court files and used LexisNexis to link respondents to mortality data through August 2020. RESULTS: We abstracted information for 201 respondents with accessible court records. Respondents were mostly white (61.2%) and men (93.5%). Fifty-four per cent of cases involved potential harm to others alone, 15.3% involved potential harm to self alone and 25.2% involved both. Mass shooting threats occurred in 28.7% of cases. Ninety-six and one half per cent of petitioners were law enforcement officers and one-in-three cases resulted in arrest on order service. One-year orders after a hearing (following 21-day emergency/temporary orders) were issued in 53.5% of cases. Most (84.2%) respondents owned at least one firearm, and firearms were removed in 55.9% of cases. Of the 379 respondents matched by LexisNexis, 7 (1.8%) died after the GVRO was issued: one from a self-inflicted firearm injury that was itself the reason for the GVRO and the others from causes unrelated to violence. CONCLUSIONS: GVROs were used most often by law enforcement officers to prevent firearm assault/homicide and post-GVRO firearm fatalities among respondents were rare. Future studies should investigate additional respondent outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity.

A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states.

BACKGROUND: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a tool for firearm violence prevention (in effect in 19 states), often enacted in the wake of a public mass shooting when media coverage of gun violence tends to spike. We compared news media framing of ERPOs in states that passed and those that considered but did not pass such laws after the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of 244 newspaper articles about ERPOs, published in 2018, in three passing (FL, VT, RI) and three non-passing states (PA, OH, CO). Measures included language used, stakeholders mentioned, and scientific evidence cited. We use chi-square tests to compare the proportion of articles with each measure of interest in passing versus non-passing states. RESULTS: Compared to newspaper coverage of non-passing states, news articles about ERPOs in passing states more often used only official policy names for ERPOs (38% vs. 23%, p = .03), used less restrictive language such as "prevent" to describe the process of suspending firearm access (15% vs. 3%, p < .01), mentioned gun violence prevention advocacy groups (41% vs. 28%, p = .08), and referenced research on ERPOs (17% vs. 7%, p = .03). Articles about passing states also more often explicitly stated that a violent event was or could have been prevented by an ERPO (20% vs. 6%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Media messaging that frames gun violence as preventable, emphasizes identifiable markers of risk, and draws on data in conjunction with community wisdom may support ERPO policy passage. As more states consider ERPO legislation, especially given endorsement by the Biden-Harris administration, deeper knowledge about successful media framing of these life-saving policies can help shape public understandings and support.

Prior Drug-Related Criminal Charges and Risk for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Authorized Purchasers of Handguns in California.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a considerable public health problem in the US, and evidence suggests that both drugs and firearms contribute to the risk of IPV and its severity. This study uses a retrospective, longitudinal cohort design to explore the association between past arrests, charges incurred in the legal process, and convictions for drug-related crimes, and risk of future arrest for IPV among legal handgun purchasers. The cohort included all legal purchasers of handguns in California in 2001 between the ages of 21 and 49 (n = 79,678), 156 of whom had pre-purchase drug charges and post-purchase IPV charges. We used Cox proportional hazards regression with age at time of handgun purchase, sex, and race/ethnicity, and an array of community characteristics as covariates. Over the study period (2001-2013), in comparison to handgun purchasers who had no charges or convictions prior to their index purchase, risk for future IPV arrest was increased for purchasers whose only prior charges were drug-related (aHR = 3.4 [95% CI: 2.4-4.9]) and purchasers who had both prior drug- and non-drug related charges (aHR = 4.9 [95% CI: 4.1-6.0]). The magnitude of the risk ratio was greater when multiple drug types were involved and when the person had been charged with both the use and sale of drugs. Our findings suggest that, among legal handgun purchasers, prior drug charges are associated with future risk of IPV arrests or convictions. Given the established link between firearm access and IPV severity and fatality, these findings may inform the development and enforcement of policies that reduce firearm access for those at elevated risk of perpetrating intimate partner violence.

Talking about firearm injury prevention with patients: a survey of medical residents.

BACKGROUND: Firearm injury and death are significant public health problems in the U.S. and physicians are uniquely situated to help prevent them. However, there is little formal training in medical education on identifying risk for firearm injury and discussing safe firearm practices with patients. This study assesses prior education, barriers to counseling, and needs for improved training on firearm safety counseling in medical education to inform the development of future education on clinical strategies for firearm injury prevention. METHOD: A 2018 survey administered to 218 residents and fellows at a large, academic medical center asked about medical training on firearm injury prevention, frequency of asking patients about firearm access, and perceived barriers. RESULTS: The most common barriers cited were not knowing what to do with patients' answers about access to firearms (72.1%), not having enough time (66.2%), not feeling comfortable identifying patients at-risk for firearm injury (49.2%), and not knowing how to ask patients about firearm access (48.6%). Prior education on firearm injury prevention was more strongly associated with asking than was personal exposure to firearms: 51.5% of respondents who had prior medical education reported asking compared with who had not received such education (31.8%, p=0.004). More than 90% of respondents were interested in further education about interventions, what questions to ask, and legal mechanisms to separate dangerous people from their firearms. CONCLUSIONS: Education on assessing risk for firearm-related harm and, when indicated, counseling on safe firearm practices may increase the likelihood clinicians practice this behavior, though additional barriers exist.

Experiences of violence in daily life among adults in California: a population-representative survey.

BACKGROUND: Research on violence exposure emphasizes discrete acute events such as direct and witnessed victimization. Little is known about the broad range of experiences of violence (EVs) in daily life. This study assesses the prevalence and patterns of distribution of 6 EVs in an adult general population. METHODS: California state-representative survey administered online (English and Spanish), July 14-27, 2020. Adult (age ≥ 18 years) California resident members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel were eligible to participate. Two EVs concerned community environments: (1) the occurrence of gunshots and shootings in the neighborhood and (2) encounters with sidewalk memorials where violent deaths occurred. Four concerned social networks: direct personal knowledge of individuals who (1) had purposefully been shot by someone else or (2) had purposefully shot themselves, and direct personal knowledge of individuals whom respondents perceived to be at risk of violence, either (3) to another person or (4) to themselves. Main outcome measures, expressed as weighted percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were the prevalence and extent (or dose) of each EV and of EVs in combination and associations between EVs and respondents' sociodemographic characteristics and firearm ownership status. RESULTS: Of 2870 respondents (57% completion rate), 52.3% (95% CI 49.5-55.0%) were female; mean [SD] age was 47.9 [16.9] years. Nearly two-thirds (64.6%, 95% CI 61.9-67.3%) reported at least 1 EV; 11.4% (95% CI 9.7-13.2%) reported 3 or more. Gender was not associated with the prevalence of any experience. Non-owners of firearms who lived with owners reported more extensive EVs through social networks than did firearm owners or non-owners in households without firearms. Knowledge of people who had been shot by others was most common among Black respondents, 31.0% (95% CI 20.9-43.3%) of whom knew 2 or more such persons. Knowledge of people who had shot themselves was greatest among respondents aged ≥ 60 years, but knowledge of persons perceived to be at risk of violence to themselves was greatest among respondents aged 18-29 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Experiences of violence in daily life are widespread. They occur in sociodemographic patterns that differ from those for direct victimization and suggest new opportunities for research and intervention.

"What does it depend on?": Perceptions of safety related to firearms in homes and neighborhoods.

BACKGROUND: Though research has established that firearms in the home increase risk for injury and death, a substantial number of Americans, especially gun owners, believe that guns make their homes safer. More than half of gun owners in a nationally-representative survey said "it depends" when asked whether guns make their homes safer or more dangerous, but little is known about the factors that affect perceived safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the relationship between the presence of firearms and perceived home or neighborhood safety is fixed or depends on additional factors and to identify the additional factors on which it depends. METHODS: A mixed-methods cross-sectional analysis of the 2018 state-representative California Safety and Wellbeing Survey (n = 2558, completion rate 49%), including calculation of weighted proportions and qualitative analysis of write-in responses. FINDINGS: One in six respondents (17.2%, 95% CI 14.9% to 19.7%) reported "it depends" when asked whether a gun in their home made the home a safer or more dangerous place to be ("the home scenario"). One in six (16.6%, 95% CI 14.3% to 19.2%) reported "it depends" when asked whether the neighborhood would be safer if all neighbors had guns in the home ("the neighborhood scenario"). For the home scenario, 28.3% (95% CI 21.9% to 35.7%) cited firearm owner characteristics (e.g., training and proficiency, temperament, and mental health), 28.4% (95% CI 22.3% to 35.5%) cited firearm storage and access, and 28.0% (95% CI 21.5% to 35.7%) cited intended use for guns as factors affecting perceived safety. For the neighborhood scenario, respondents overwhelmingly cited gun owner characteristics (72.1%, 95% CI 63.4% to 79.3%). Factors on which "it depends" varied by gun ownership status. CONCLUSION: Perceived safety when firearms are in the home depends on numerous factors. Understanding these factors may inform tailored, targeted messaging and interventions for firearm injury prevention.

News media coverage of extreme risk protection order policies surrounding the Parkland shooting: a mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there was a dramatic increase in media coverage of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) and in state policy proposals for ERPO laws. This study documents the frequency of news coverage of ERPOs throughout 2018 and examines the narratives used by media outlets to describe this risk-based firearm policy. METHODS: Using a mixed-method descriptive design, we examine the frequency of national news media coverage of ERPO legislation in 2018, before and after the Parkland shooting, and analyze the content of news articles related to a sample of states that considered ERPO legislation after the shooting. RESULTS: We find a sharp increase in the frequency of articles related to ERPOs following the Parkland shooting and smaller increases in coverage surrounding ERPO policy proposals and other public mass shootings that year. Nearly three-quarters of articles in our content analysis mentioned the Parkland shooting. The news media often mentioned or quoted politicians compared to other stakeholders, infrequently specified uses for ERPOs (e.g., prevention of mass violence, suicide, or other violence), and rarely included evidence on effectiveness of such policies. More than one-quarter of articles mentioned a mass shooting perpetrator by name, and one-third of articles used the term "gun control." CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the emerging public discourse, as informed by media messaging and framing, on ERPOs as states continue to debate and implement these risk-based firearm violence prevention policies.

Implementation and perceived effectiveness of gun violence restraining orders in California: A qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), which temporarily prohibit the possession and purchase of firearms and ammunition from individuals at particularly high risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm, has been slow and heterogenous across California. Insights into the implementation process and perceived effectiveness of the law could guide implementation in California and the many states that have enacted or are considering enacting such a law. METHODS: We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 27 key informants, including judges, law enforcement officers, city and district attorneys, policy experts, and firearm violence researchers. Analysis of transcripts was guided by grounded theory and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). FINDINGS: The following constructs emerged within 4 CFIR domains as salient features of implementation: 1) implementation characteristics: risk of violence, cost, and adaptability; 2) outer setting: interagency coordination and local firearm ideology; 3) inner setting: readiness for implementation and law enforcement firearm culture; and 4) implementation process: planning and engaging with those involved in implementation. Key informants perceived the law to be effective, particularly for preventing firearm suicide, but agreed that more research was needed. While most indicated that the law resulted in positive outcomes, concerns about the potential for class- and race-based inequities were also raised. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the GVRO law in California was hampered by a lack of funding to support local proactive implementation efforts. This resulted in ad hoc policies and procedures, leading to inconsistent practices and widespread confusion among those responsible for implementation. In states that have not begun implementation, we recommend dedicating funding for implementation and creating local procedures statewide prior to the law's rollout. In California, recommendations include providing training on the GVRO law-including an explication of agency-specific roles, responsibilities, and procedures-to officers, city attorneys, and civil court judges.

Clinical strategies for reducing firearm suicide.

Suicide is complex, with psychiatric, cultural, and socioeconomic roots. Though mental illnesses like depression contribute to risk for suicide, access to lethal means such as firearms is considered a key risk factor for suicide, and half of suicides in the USA are by firearm. When a person at risk of suicide has access to firearms, clinicians have a range of options for intervention. Depending on the patient, the situation, and the access to firearms, counseling on storage practices, temporary transfer of firearms, or further intervention may be appropriate. In the USA, ownership of and access to firearms are common and discussing added risk of access to firearms for those at risk of suicide is not universally practiced. Given the burden of suicide (particularly by firearm) in the USA, the prevalence of firearm access, and the lethality of suicide attempts with firearms, we present the existing evidence on the burden of firearm suicide and what clinicians can do to reduce their patients' risk. Specifically, we review firearm ownership in the USA, firearm injury epidemiology, risk factors for firearm-related harm, and available interventions to reduce patients' risk of firearm injury and death.

Firearm Practices, Perceptions of Safety, and Opinions on Injury Prevention Strategies Among California Adults.

Importance: Safe firearm storage and other interventions may reduce pediatric firearm deaths and injuries. Objective: To compare firearm ownership and storage practices, opinions on firearm injury prevention strategies, and perceptions of safety among adults in California households with and without children and/or adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used data from the 2018 California Safety and Well-being Survey, a California-representative, probability-based internet survey. Respondents were part of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, an online research panel that uses address-based sampling and provides survey weights to produce estimates representative of the adult population of California. Main Outcomes and Measures: Topics included firearm storage practices, opinions on interventions to reduce pediatric firearm injury, and perceptions of household safety related to firearm ownership. Respondents were stratified by firearm ownership and household presence or absence of children and/or adolescents. Weighted percentages and 95% CIs are presented. Results: Of 5232 invited panel members, 2558 (48.9%) completed the survey. Among respondents, 52.5% (95% CI, 49.3%-55.7%) were women, 42.9% (95% CI, 39.9%-45.9%) were White, 30.0% (95% CI, 26.8%-32.9%) lived in homes with children, and the mean (SD) age was 48.0 (17.1) years. Among those in homes with children, more than two-thirds of individuals who owned firearms (70.6% [95% CI, 50.1%-85.2%]) and more than half of individuals who did not own firearms but lived in homes with guns (54.9% [95% CI, 37.9%-70.8%]) reported that they believed a firearm in the home made it safer. Half of those who owned firearms (52.3% [95% CI, 34.9%-69.2%]) and more than three-quarters of individuals who did not own firearms but lived in homes with guns (78.4% [95% CI, 57.5%-90.7%]) reported it was always appropriate for parents to inquire about unlocked guns in homes where their children play. Among those who had previously owned at least 1 gun but no longer did, 13.3% (95% CI, 7.1%-23.8%) reported getting rid of guns at least in part due to concern for the safety of a child in the home. Nearly two-thirds of those who owned firearms living with children and/or adolescents (64.5% [95% CI, 46.5%-79.2%]) did not store all firearms in the most secure manner (ie, unloaded and locked up), compared with 36.4% (95% CI, 29.4%-44.1%) of individuals who owned firearms but did not live with children. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, although a substantial percentage of individuals who owned guns and lived with children did not store all firearms as recommended, parents and caregivers who owned firearms reported being amenable to interventions that reduce young people's risk of firearm-related harm. Future work should investigate acceptable risk reduction and safe storage interventions.

Public Concern About Violence, Firearms, and the COVID-19 Pandemic in California.

Importance: Violence is a significant public health problem that has become entwined with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To describe individuals' concerns regarding violence in the context of the pandemic, experiences of pandemic-related unfair treatment, prevalence of and reasons for firearm acquisition, and changes in firearm storage practices due to the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used data from the 2020 California Safety and Well-being Survey, a probability-based internet survey of California adults conducted from July 14 to 27, 2020. Respondents came from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, an online research panel with members selected using address-based sampling methods. Responses were weighted to be representative of the adult population of California. Main Outcomes and Measures: Topics included worry about violence for oneself before and during the pandemic; concern about violence for someone else due to a pandemic-related loss; experiences of unfair treatment attributed to the pandemic; firearm and ammunition acquisition due to the pandemic; and changes in firearm storage practices due to the pandemic. Results: Of 5018 invited panel members, 2870 completed the survey (completion rate, 57%). Among respondents (52.3% [95% CI, 49.5%-55.0%] women; mean [SD] age, 47.9 [16.9] years; 41.9% [95% CI, 39.3%-44.6%] White individuals), self-reported worry about violence for oneself was significantly higher during the pandemic for all violence types except mass shootings, ranging from a 2.8 percentage point increase for robbery (from 65.5% [95% CI, 62.8%-68.0%] to 68.2% [95% CI, 65.6%-70.7%]; P = .008) to a 5.6 percentage point increase for stray bullet shootings (from 44.5% [95% CI, 41.7%-47.3%] to 50.0% [47.3%-52.8%]; P < .001). The percentage of respondents concerned that someone they know might intentionally harm themselves was 13.1% (95% CI, 11.5%-15.3%). Of those, 7.5% (95% CI, 4.5%-12.2%) said it was because the other person had experienced a pandemic-related loss. An estimated 110 000 individuals (2.4% [95% CI, 1.1%-5.0%] of firearm owners in the state) acquired a firearm due to the pandemic, including 47 000 new owners (43.0% [95% CI, 14.8%-76.6%] of those who had acquired a firearm). Of owners who stored at least 1 firearm in the least secure way, 6.7% (95% CI, 2.7%-15.6%) said they had adopted this unsecure storage practice in response to the pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of findings from the 2020 California Safety and Well-being Survey, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increases in self-reported worry about violence for oneself and others, increased firearm acquisition, and changes in firearm storage practices. Given the impulsive nature of many types of violence, short-term crisis interventions may be critical for reducing violence-related harm.

Firearm purchases without background checks in California.

Background checks are designed to prevent firearm acquisition by people prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. There is limited information about background checks, particularly on a state by state basis. We conducted a state-representative, probability-based, Internet survey of California adults in 2018 (n=2558; completion rate 49%) to describe where, when, and how firearms are acquired and to estimate the proportion of current firearm owners who purchased their most recent firearm without a background check. An estimated 17.2% (95% CI: 9.6-28.8) of firearm owners who purchased their most recent firearm within California in 1991 or later, following implementation of the state's comprehensive background check law, reported doing so without a background check. This percentage was 44.6% (95% CI: 27.1-63.5) among owners who purchased their most recent firearm before 1991 and 27.1% (95% CI: 13.1-47.7) among those who purchased their most recent firearm outside California. Firearm purchases without background checks occurred more often for firearms purchased from private sellers (72.3%; 95% CI: 35.5-92.5) than retailers (8.5%; 95% CI: 3.4-19.7). Overall, firearm purchases without background checks are considerably less common in California than in states without regulations on private sales. However, gaps in implementation and proper enforcement remain. Future research could investigate reasons for such lapses, as well as complementary state policy approaches that require background checks prior to point of purchase.

Public Awareness of and Personal Willingness to Use California's Extreme Risk Protection Order Law to Prevent Firearm-Related Harm.

Importance: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws temporarily suspend firearm and ammunition access by individuals whom a judge has deemed to be at substantial risk of harming themselves or others. Despite widespread recent adoption of these laws, use of ERPOs has been limited. Barriers to ERPO uptake remain unclear. Objective: To assess public awareness and perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use ERPOs in various risk scenarios, and to identify reasons for being unwilling, overall and by firearm ownership status, to inform efforts to improve ERPO implementation. Design Setting and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey, a statewide internet survey on firearm ownership and exposure to violence and its consequences, conducted from July 14 to July 27, 2020. Adult respondents were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel using probability-based sampling methods. Responses were weighted to be representative of the adult population of California. Main Outcomes and Measures: Awareness and perceived appropriateness of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs; California's official term for ERPOs), willingness to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm, and reasons for being not at all willing to use a GVRO in 1 or more risk scenarios, overall and by firearm ownership status. Results: Of the 5018 panel members invited, 2870 (57%) completed the survey. Of these respondents (mean [SD] age: 47.9 [16.9] years; 52.3% women; 41.9% White, 34.7% Latinx, 14.4% Asian, and 5.8% Black individuals), 65.6% (95% CI, 63.0%-68.1) had never heard of a GVRO or a red flag law. Firearm owners were significantly more likely (20.5%; 95% CI, 15.9%-26.0%) than nonowners who live with owners (6.1%; 95% CI, 3.7%-10.0%; P < .001) and nonowners (9.6%; 95% CI, 7.8%-11.6%; P < .001) to have heard of both a GVRO and a red flag law. After reading a brief description of California's GVRO law, 72.9% (95% CI, 70.2%-75.4%) to 78.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-80.8%) of respondents, depending on the risk scenario, indicated that GVROs were in general at least sometimes appropriate, while 73.2% (95% CI, 70.5%-75.6%) to 83.6% (95% CI, 81.2%-85.8%) said they would be somewhat or very willing to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm. Firearm owners reported the highest levels of GVRO appropriateness in 4 of 5 risk scenarios (depending on the scenario, 80.0% [95% CI, 73.6%-85.1%] to 85.6% [95% CI, 79.9%-89.8%]). Nonowners who live with owners reported the highest levels of personal willingness to use a GVRO (depending on the scenario, 83.7% [95% CI, 74.7%-90.0%] to 94.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-98.1%]). The most frequently cited reasons for being unwilling to use a GVRO were not knowing enough about GVROs (44.9%; 95% CI, 39.7%-50.3%), believing the risk scenarios are personal or family matters (26.6%; 95% CI, 22.2%-31.6%), and distrust that the system will be fair (23.1%; 95% CI, 19.1%-27.6%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, public awareness of GVROs was low, but perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use these tools at least some of the time was high. Foci for efforts to address barriers to GVRO use in California were identified; similar challenges likely exist in other jurisdictions.

Exposure to Violence, Firearm Involvement, and Socioemotional Consequences Among California Adults.

Violence is a leading cause of injury and death, and its impacts extend far beyond physical harm to the victim. We estimated the prevalence of direct or indirect exposure to violence, factors associated with exposure, and effects of exposure on socioemotional health-with effect modification by firearm involvement during the violent event-among a state-representative sample of California adults. We also examined effects of exposure on subsequent intent to purchase firearms. The sample comprised 2,558 California adults who completed the 2018 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey. An estimated 4% of respondents-1.2 million Californians-said they or a household member were exposed to violence while living in their current neighborhood. Half of those exposed to violence reported the event was "severely" distressing, and 47% experienced social functioning problems (i.e., problems with job/school and/or family/friends); for comparison, only 12% of unexposed adults reported having such problems in the past 12 months. When the violent event involved a weapon, respondents who did (versus did not) experience severe distress were significantly more likely to report that a firearm was present (69% versus 14%); those with (versus without) social functioning problems were significantly more likely to report other types of weapons were involved (67% versus 22%). Exposed adults considered buying a gun in response to the violent event more often than did unexposed respondents in the past 12 months (33% versus 17%). These findings highlight the need to address the physical and psychological sequelae of violence exposure among direct and indirect victims and can inform violence prevention research, programs, and policies across the nation.

Assessment of Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in California From 2016 to 2019.

Importance: A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia now have extreme risk protection order (ERPO) or similar policies, and others are considering them; however, little research exists describing their use. Objective: To characterize early use of California's ERPO policy by providing the first aggregate, statewide description of ERPOs, individuals subject to them, and petitioners. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed 1076 respondents to ERPOs recorded in the California Department of Justice California Restraining and Protective Order System from 2016 to 2019. Descriptive analyses of orders issued between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019 in California were performed, and univariate Moran I was calculated to examine county-level spatial autocorrelation of the policy's use. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcomes included the characteristics of ERPO respondents (demographic characteristics), petitioners (law enforcement vs family or household members), and orders (type and service) as well as temporal and spatial variation in policy use during the first 4 years of implementation. Results: Of 1076 respondents during the study period, most were men (985 [91.5%]) and white individuals (637 [59.2%]), with a mean age of 41.8 years (range, 14 to 98 years). A law enforcement officer was the petitioner in 1038 cases (96.5%). The number of respondents increased during the study period from 70 in 2016 to 700 in 2019, and there was substantial county-level variation in ERPO use (ranging from 0 to 354 respondents), with significant spatial clustering in counts of ERPO respondents among neighboring counties (observed Moran I, 0.18, mean [SD] Moran I from reference distribution, -0.01 (0.05); z value, 3.58; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: This study, among the first to describe the early utilization of an ERPO or similar policy, found a substantial increase in the use of ERPOs in California from 2016 to 2019. These results could inform policy makers and other stakeholders involved in policy implementation and outreach in California and elsewhere. Similar studies in other states would be useful to understand variation.

Understanding adherence to the CardioMEMS pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system for heart failure: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The CardioMEMS HF system is a remote monitoring device that allows patients to transmit pulmonary artery pressure readings to providers, who are alerted when pressures increase above the patient's normal threshold. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of patient adherence to the CardioMEMS system and to compare patients' self-reported use of the system with actual adherence. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients who had a CardioMEMS device. Transcripts were analyzed using a combination of structural and process coding. RESULTS: Patients engaged with the CardioMEMS system in a reciprocal manner, continually learning from the feedback provided by the system. Self-concept influenced the way that patients adhere. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experience many benefits of the CardioMEMS system; however, it is not clear that these perceived or real benefits affect how a person adheres. Rather, our findings suggest that a person's self-concept may be a better predictor of adherence to telemonitoring systems.