ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Reducing firearm access for youth at risk for suicide in a pediatric emergency department.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary lethal means safety counseling design and implementation: training and identifying barriers in a children's hospital.Injury epidemiology · 2025Article
- Understanding caregiver preferences for firearm locking devices in a pediatric emergency department.Injury epidemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Firearm-related suicide is the second leading cause of pediatric firearm death. Lethal means counseling (LMC) can improve firearm safe-storage practices for families with youth at risk of suicide. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of pediatric emergency department (ED) behavioral mental health (BMH) specialists providing LMC to caregivers of youth presenting with BMH complaints and to test for changes in firearm safety practices, pre-post ED LMC intervention, as measures of preliminary efficacy. Methods: Prospective pilot feasibility study of caregivers of youth presenting to a pediatric ED with BMH complaints. Caregivers completed an electronic survey regarding demographics and firearm safe-storage knowledge/practices followed by BMH specialist LMC. Firearm owners were offered a free lockbox and/or trigger lock. One-week follow-up surveys gathered self-reported data on firearm safety practices and intervention acceptability. One-month interviews with randomly sampled firearm owners collected additional firearm safety data. Primary outcomes were feasibility measures, including participant accrual/attrition and LMC intervention acceptability. Secondary outcomes included self-reported firearm safety practice changes. Feasibility benchmarks were manually tabulated, and Likert-scale acceptability responses were dichotomized to strongly agree/agree vs. neutral/disagree/strongly disagree. Descriptive statistics were used for univariate and paired data responses. Results: In total, 81 caregivers were approached; of which, 50 (81%) caregivers enrolled. A total of 44% reported having a firearm at home, 80% completed follow-up at one week. More than 80% affirmed that ED firearm safety education was useful and that the ED is an appropriate place for firearm safety discussions. In total, 58% of participants reported not having prior firearm safety education/counseling. Among firearm owners ( Conclusion: It is feasible to provide LMC in the pediatric ED via BMH specialists to families of high-risk youth. Caregivers were receptive to LMC and reported finding this intervention useful, acceptable, and appropriate. Additionally, LMC and device distribution led to reported changes in safe storage practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.