RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The Effect of Firearm Laws on Pediatric Mortality in the United States
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.09.21.24314130
DO 10.1101/2024.09.21.24314130
A1 Faust, Jeremy Samuel
A1 Chen, Ji
A1 Bhat, Shriya
A1 Otugo, Onyekachi
A1 Renton, Benjamin
A1 Chen, Alexander Junxiang
A1 Lin, Zhenqiu
A1 Krumholz, Harlan M.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.21.24314130.abstract
AB Introduction Firearms are the leading cause of death in US children and adolescents, but little is known about whether legal policies may be responsible.Methods We conducted difference-in-differences analysis on CDC WONDER data before and after McDonald v. Chicago, the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision on firearms regulation. States were divided into three groups, based on legal actions taken before and since 2010, most permissive, permissive, and restricted. Firearm mortality trends before (1999-2010) and after (2010-2023) were determined and compared across the three groups for all intents and by intent (homicide and suicide). Within the most permissive state grouping, pediatric firearm mortality by 2013 urbanicity and by observed race and ethnicity were conducted. For each US state, pre-and- post 2010 all-intent pediatric firearm mortality incident rates were compared.Results There were 7130 excess pediatric firearms deaths in states with more permissive regulatory regimes than those with stricter frameworks, as well as higher rates of homicide and suicide. Non-Hispanic Black populations were disproportionately affected by these trends. Four states (California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island) had decreased pediatric firearm mortality after 2010, all of which were in the restrictive firearms law group.Conclusion States with more permissive firearm laws have experienced greater pediatric firearm mortality during the post-McDonald v. Chicago era.Question Did states enacting permissive firearm laws after 2010—when McDonald v. Chicago was decided by the United States Supreme Court—subsequently experience higher rates of pediatric firearm mortality?Findings Difference-in-difference analysis found that state groups that enacted more permissive firearm laws after 2010 experienced >7,100 firearm deaths in children and adolescents ages 0-17 between 2010-2023 compared to restrictive law-enacting states, of which most (77.5%) were homicides. In the permissive states groups, increases occurred in all urbanicities. The largest increase occurred in non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents. Four states had statistical decreases in pediatric firearm mortality during the study period, all of which were in states which enacted restrictive firearm policies.Meaning Permissive firearm laws contributed thousands of excess firearm deaths among children living in states with permissive policies. Future work should focus on determining which types of laws conferred the most harm and which the most protection.Competing Interest StatementDr. Krumholz reported receiving expenses and/or personal fees within the past 3 years from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Reality Labs, Tesseract/4Catalyst, F-Prime, Siegfried and Jensen law firm, Arnold and Porter law firm, and Martin/Baughman law firm; being a co-founder of Refactor Health and HugoHealth; and being associated with contracts through Yale New Haven Hospital from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson. No other disclosures were reported. Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used only openly available public health data accessible through the CDC WONDER database.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data analyzed in this study are derived from the CDC WONDER database.