ArticlePreventive medicine2026
A scoping review of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in U.S. firearm injury research.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesize theoretical and conceptual frameworks in firearm injury research, identify gaps across contexts, and inform applications for researchers and practitioners.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review following PRISMA guidelines, searching seven databases for United States-based studies (1999-2024) that applied theoretical or conceptual frameworks to firearm injury research. After piloting the extraction form, reviewers charted study characteristics, firearm injury context (community, mass shootings, police, suicide, partner/dating, school, or multiple contexts), theoretical or conceptual framework, and social ecological level. Data were summarized using descriptive counts.
resultsAmong 213 studies, most were non-intervention (82%) and observational (84%), conducted in urban settings with predominantly male, non-White adolescents and young adults. Most studies applied criminological theories (Routine Activities, Social Disorganization), while only 22% applied conceptual models. Critical and equity-focused theories were absent despite demographic disparities. Few studies empirically test theories; only 21 developed or adapted frameworks. Significant gaps existed in online contexts, rural settings, and among children and older adults. Theoretical-methodological misalignment was evident.
conclusionsAlthough theoretical frameworks are foundational to firearm research, current work remains variable across populations and contexts. Theory development must move beyond siloed approaches through transdisciplinary collaboration, empirical testing, and community co-creation to guide effective prevention strategies.
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.