The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Balancing the Roles of Clinicians and Police in Separating Firearms from People in a Dangerous Mental Health Crisis: Legal Rules, Policy Tools, and Ethical Considerations
Abstract
In COVID’s immediate wake, the 2020 death toll from a different enemy of the public’s health — gun violence — ticked up by 15 percent in the United States from the previous year. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Caniglia v. Strom that will allow people who have recently threatened suicide — with a gun — to keep unsecured guns in their home unless police take time to obtain a search warrant to remove them.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“current suicide risk assessment tools do not adequately capture individuals at an acutely elevated risk but rather identify those with many risk factors who may not attempt suicide.”
From A Moving Target: Firearm Deaths, Mental Health, and the Role of Physicians (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, individuals convicted of a felony or involuntarily committed to a mental health facility are prohibited from purchasing firearms [11].”
From A Moving Target: Firearm Deaths, Mental Health, and the Role of Physicians (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“some states do not allow clinicians to directly petition the court, despite their critical role in assessing safety risks and counseling patients [11].”
From A Moving Target: Firearm Deaths, Mental Health, and the Role of Physicians (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Therefore, expanding the ability of mental health providers to petition for ERPOs might enable earlier intervention.”
From A Moving Target: Firearm Deaths, Mental Health, and the Role of Physicians (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) was used in an emergency department to assess suicide risk but was found to have poor sensitivity, as many patients who screened negative within the previous 30 days subsequently died by suicide.”
From A Moving Target: Firearm Deaths, Mental Health, and the Role of Physicians (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Turecki, G., Brent, D. A., Gunnell, D., O’Connor, R. C., Oquendo, M. A., Pirkis, J., & Stanley, B. H. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0121-0 · Cited by 1,074 · cited 1×
“32 A large meta-analysis evaluating 50 years of research revealed that suicide prediction is only slightly better than chance, and that predictive ability had not improved over the 50 years of studies on suicide.”
Improving Suicide Prevention Through Evidence-Based Strategies: A Systematic Review
Mann, J. J., Michel, C. A., & Auerbach, R. P. (2021) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20060864 · Cited by 655
Prospective Validation of an Electronic Health Record–Based, Real-Time Suicide Risk Model
Walsh, C. G., Johnson, K. B., Ripperger, M., Sperry, S., Harris, J., Clark, N., Fielstein, E., Novak, L., Robinson, K., & Stead, W. W. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1428 · Cited by 78
Cited by
A Moving Target: Firearm Deaths, Mental Health, and the Role of Physicians
Soliman, L., Baines-Waiz, O., Rozel, J. S., Blankenship, K., & Rachal, J. (2024) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-024-01569-2 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Vitiello, E., Roskam, K., & Swanson, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-103
- ISSN
- 1073-1105
- 1748-720X
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
