Cited by 40Gun Ownership and Violence ResearchCrime Patterns and InterventionsHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse

Identifying participants for inclusion in hospital-based violence intervention: An analysis of 18 years of urban firearm recidivism

Bonne, Stephanie, Tufariello, Ann, Coles, Zachary, Hohl, Bernadette, Ostermann, Michael, Boxer, Paul, Sloan-Power, Elizabeth, Gusmano, Michael +3 more·2020·Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

Abstract

Background Identifying individuals at highest risk maximizes efficacy of prevention programs in decreasing recidivist gunshot wound (GSW) injury. Characteristics of GSW recidivists may identify this population. Hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs) are one effective strategy; however, programs are expensive, therefore, when possible, epidemiologic data should guide inclusion criteria. Methods Seventeen years of all GSW patients presenting to an urban Level I trauma center were reviewed. Countywide murders were reviewed from the same timeframe. Recidivists were any patient presenting twice, either to the hospital or once to the hospital and subsequently dying by firearm. Demographics and characteristics of future recidivists were compared with nonfuture recidivists. Results There were 9,699 unique intentional, GSW cases reviewed and 1,426 died, leaving 8,273 at risk of recidivism. Five hundred fourteen (6.2%) became recidivists. Most recidivists were African-American men and were younger at first GSW. Median time between incidents was 2.5 years, with a range of 0 days to 16 years. Nearly half were treated and released from the emergency department at their first episode of GSW. For recidivists who died, 128 died at the second incident, 29 at later incidents. Mortality from a second incident of firearm injury is 10% higher than first injuries, second hospitalizations are US $5,000 more expensive, and loss of life has a societal cost of US $167 billion in this co…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ta.0000000000002680

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonne, S., Tufariello, A., Coles, Z., Hohl, B., Ostermann, M., Boxer, P., Sloan-Power, E., Gusmano, M., Glass, N. E., Kunac, A., & Livingston, D.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Venue
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Published
2020-03-17
Volume
89
Issue
1
Pages
68-73
ISSN
  • 2163-0755 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-0763
OpenAlex
W3011228014
Cited by
40
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Gun Ownership and Violence Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Keywords
hospital-based violence intervention programs, gunshot wounds, urban violence, high-risk population identification, African American men, young men, trauma center patients, homicide, violence prevention
MeSH terms
Recidivism, Gun Violence, Adult, Female, Firearms, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, New Jersey, Patient Readmission, Trauma Centers, Wounds, Gunshot, Risk Assessment

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