SynthesisPloS one2026
Perspectives of military-affiliated women on lethal means safety: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen are the fastest-growing military cohort, with suicide rates rising faster than among veteran men and civilian women. Lethal means include firearms, used more often than by civilian women, and non-firearm methods like poisoning, used more than by veteran men. Despite these trends, most lethal means research is gender-neutral, and clinical guidance lacks gender-informed strategies.
objectivesTo synthesize literature on military-affiliated women's perspectives on lethal means safety and how it should be addressed in suicide prevention conversations.
designQualitative systematic review. DATA SOURCES: APA PsycINFO via Ovid, Ovid MEDLINE ALL, select government and non-profit websites, and citation searching through December 2024.
methodsScreening occurred in two stages (title/abstract and full text), with 30% of records double-screened. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP), Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) Checklist, and Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Qualitative and quantitative data fragments were extracted and organized into domains on ownership, access, and means safety interventions. Thematic synthesis used an inductive coding approach. The protocol was published on OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z8DJH).
resultsSix of the seven articles included perspectives of VHA-enrolled women veterans on firearms or firearm safety counseling, two included active duty women. Three themes on firearm ownership and access emerged, highlighting variations in: understandings of safety surrounding firearms, the impact of military service and identity on firearm beliefs, and the role of spouses/partners in household firearm access. Three themes relating to lethal means safety counseling were identified: general acceptability of interventions, trust as a critical element of means safety conversations, and spouses as stakeholders in means safety conversations.
conclusionsLethal means safety counseling for military-affiliated women must be trauma-sensitive and gender-informed. Future research must expand beyond VA contexts and examine the impact and feasibility of engaging spouses in safety interventions.
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.