ArticleInjury epidemiology2025
Use of Oregon's Extreme Risk Protection Order law to prevent mass violence: A descriptive study.
Article in Injury epidemiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFirearm violence is a critical public health issue in the United States. Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws have been enacted in many states to prevent firearm violence, including mass violence. Oregon's ERPO law allows family/household members or law enforcement officers to petition a civil court for an order to temporarily restrict a person's access to firearms when at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. This study examined the characteristics of ERPO petitions filed in Oregon that involved mass violence threats.
methodsERPO court records for petitions filed from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023 were obtained through the Oregon Judicial Case Information Network and abstracted; double coding was completed to assess interrater reliability. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine characteristics of ERPO petitions filed to prevent mass violence. These petitions were compared to those without mass violence threats using Fisher's exact tests and the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
resultsFrom 2018 to 2023, 835 ERPO petitions were filed, of which 92 (11.0%) cited a risk of mass violence. ERPO petitions citing threats of mass violence were more likely to be granted (90.2%) than those without such threats (76.3%; p = 0.002). Risks of mass violence to schools or college campuses, specifically, were cited in 27 petitions, all of which were granted. Law enforcement officers filed a larger proportion of the petitions citing threats of mass violence (88.0%) than petitions without such threats (57.9%; p < 0.001).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that Oregon's ERPO law is being used as intended to address firearm injury risk, including mass violence risk and risk to schools and college campuses. Petitions citing mass violence threats appeared to differ significantly in terms of some characteristics from those citing non-mass violence threat types, including a higher likelihood of being granted. Further research on the use of ERPOs is needed to fully understand the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of these laws to prevent mass violence.
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.