ArticlePloS one2024
Defining harmful news reporting on community firearm violence: A modified Delphi consensus study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Examining disparities in harmful reporting on community firearm violence in Philadelphia television news reports.Injury epidemiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of community firearm violence news reports across four local television stations in Philadelphia, PA, USA: A quantitative media content analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Community firearm violence (CFV), including fatal and non-fatal shootings that result from interpersonal violence, disproportionately harms people from marginalized racial groups. News reporting on CFV can further exacerbate these harms. However, examining the effects of harmful news reporting on CFV on individuals, communities, and society is hindered by the lack of a consensus definition of harmful reporting on CFV. In this study, we aimed to define harmful reporting on CFV. We used a modified, three-round Delphi process to achieve consensus among diverse stakeholders. Round 1 sought to assess consensus on 12 potentially harmful news content elements for three levels of harm (individual, community, and society). Round 2 invited panelists to rate the severity of each news content element at each level of harm. Round 3 asked panelists to agree or disagree with the panel's median severity rating of each element at each level of harm. Twenty-one panelists were recruited from three expertise groups (lived experience of CFV, journalism practice, scholarship) and all panelists completed all three rounds. In Round 1, no negative consensus was achieved for any of the proposed news content elements. In Round 2, panelists assigned moderate to severe harm ratings for all but two news content elements, and median harm ratings for each element varied across the different levels of harm. In Round 3, panelists reported high levels of agreement for each harm rating at each level. This modified Delphi process yielded a definition of the 12 elements that comprise harmful news reporting on CFV and severity ratings of harm caused by each element at each level according to expert consensus. Future work will use these results to evaluate and intervene on harmful reporting on CFV. Reducing harm from reporting on CFV can help address this health disparity and support evidence-based approaches to this urgent public health issue.
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.