ArticleInjury epidemiology2026
Patterns of court-ordered behavioral health evaluations among extreme risk protection order respondents in Washington State.
Article in Injury epidemiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are civil court orders that temporarily restrict firearm access for people at risk of harming themselves or others. In some cases, courts mandate respondents to complete a behavioral health evaluation (BHE), which may create an opportunity to connect people with unmet behavioral health needs to behavioral health services. However, little is known about how often these evaluations are ordered, what factors shape these decisions, or how judges explain their reasoning when a BHE is not ordered. This mixed-methods study examined patterns in court-ordered BHEs among granted ERPOs in Washington State from 2017-2023.
methodsQuantitative analyses examined how often BHEs were ordered, whether orders varied by respondent or case characteristics, and the frequency of BHE orders over time. We also conducted a qualitative content analysis of judges' written explanations in cases where an evaluation was considered appropriate but not ordered, using an inductive coding approach to identify common themes.
resultsBetween 2017 and 2023, BHEs were ordered in less than half of granted ERPOs. Rurality was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with differences in BHE orders, but differences in BHE orders among other respondent or case characteristics were also observed. BHE orders varied per year, with more than half (55.8%) of ERPOs ordering a BHE in 2023. Judges most often cited recent or ongoing treatment, recent involuntary psychiatric holds, or parallel criminal proceedings as reasons for not ordering an evaluation. Other explanations included procedural considerations, reliance on family supports, and limited ability to monitor compliance.
conclusionFindings indicated that BHEs are not consistently used in ERPO cases in Washington State, and their use varies by respondent and case characteristics, geography, and service access. Addressing gaps in statutory clarity, strengthening systems for monitoring compliance, supporting coordination across legal systems, and expanding access to affordable, voluntary behavioral health services may help ensure that ERPOs more consistently support both firearm safety and connection to appropriate care.
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.