The effectiveness of an ED-based violence prevention program
Abstract
Background Youth violence continues to be a problem in the United States, most prominent in the inner-city minority youth population. The recurrence rate for repeat violence has been reported from 6% to 44% with a 5-year mortality of 20%. This study describes the results of a program to reduce violence recurrence based in the ED. Methods Patients aged 10 to 24 years who were victims of interpersonal violence (excluding child abuse, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence) were randomly enrolled in the study in level 1 trauma center. The control group was given a written list of services, and the treatment group received an assessment and case management for 6 months. Both groups were evaluated 6 and 12 months after enrollment in the study. The primary indicators of the success of the intervention were reduction of self-reported revictimization or arrest and state-reported incarceration and reinjury. The study was approved by the institutional review board. The results compared the change in treatment and control groups over the time using a combination of chi(2) and analysis of covariance. Results One hundred eighty-eight victims of interpersonal violence met the criteria and had the initial evaluation completed. By chi(2) analysis, the treatment group (96 subjects) and the control group (92 subjects) were similar in age, sex, and racial composition. The average age was 18.6 years (range, 11-24), and 82.5% were boys. Most youth were African Americans (65.4%), followed b…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The review identified few primary prevention studies which did not demonstrate impact, suggesting publication bias, which undermines the ability to assess unsuccessful interventions.
“Finally, we identified few primary prevention studies which did not demonstrate impact25,34,36 suggesting publication bias, which undermines our ability to assess unsuccessful interventions.”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [34]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 23 · Cited by 147
- Authors
- Zun, L. S., Downey, L., & Rosen, J.
- Affiliations
- Roosevelt University (US)
- Mount Sinai Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zun, Leslie S.
- ORCID
- Zun, Leslie S.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 8-13
- ISSN
- 0735-6757 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2164872418
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 13.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Illinois Department of Public Health
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Health › Gun Ownership and Violence Research
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Keywords
- violence prevention, youth violence, interpersonal violence, revictimization, injury recurrence, case management, emergency department interventions, violence recurrence, African American youth, Latino youth, incarceration, arrests
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Child, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Juvenile Delinquency, Male, Patient Education as Topic, Violence, Treatment Outcome, Case Management, Directive Counseling, Secondary Prevention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review