ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Experiences with and perspectives on firearm injury prevention among emergency medical services clinicians.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFirearm-related injury is a significant public health problem in the United States. Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are uniquely positioned to recognize and counsel individuals at risk, but little is known about their firearm screening and counseling practices, experience with firearms, and training needs. To address these knowledge gaps and inform training efforts, this study examined the current and potential role of EMS clinicians in firearm injury prevention.
methodsA 22-item survey was e-mailed to EMS agencies, predominantly in California and Nevada. EMS clinicians who had worked 5 + shifts in the previous three months were eligible to participate. Question topics included: participant characteristics, recent encounters with at-risk patients, career exposure to firearm risk situations, experience with firearms, and training on firearm injury prevention. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and write-in responses were analyzed thematically.
resultsAmong 234 participants, 75% reported that at least some of their calls in the past three months involved someone at risk of firearm-related injury. Among those who responded to at-risk patients, 47% reported that they never asked these patients about firearm access and 88% said that they did not provide them with education/counseling on firearm injury prevention. 76% were at least somewhat worried about being injured by a firearm while on duty, and 19% reported having had a firearm drawn on or used against them during a call. Participants reported being on duty without law enforcement when firearms were accessible to suicidal patients (70%), to children (47%), and in domestic violence situations (49%). Approximately 70% reported current or previous firearm ownership, and 82% felt comfortable handling firearms. More than one-third had not received medical education on firearm injury prevention, and 85% expressed interest in future training.
conclusionsAs the sole health care providers for many patients and given their unique prehospital perspective, with additional training, EMS clinicians can expand their role in firearm injury prevention. Training should: respect the right to own firearms; prioritize a risk-based approach to firearms screening; highlight interventions for reducing firearm injury risk; address the increased risk of firearm injury among EMS clinicians; and align with local policies, including those involving law enforcement. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.