Citation

Schleimer JP, Rencken CA, Miller M, Swanson SA, Rowhani-Rahbar A. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2024; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, Oxford University Press)

DOI

10.1093/aje/kwae191

PMID

39038791

Abstract

Legislative firearm policies are often proposed as a way of preventing firearm-related harm. Confounding is a substantial threat to accurately estimating the causal effects of firearm policies. This scoping review characterizes selection of potential confounders in US firearm policy evaluations in the health sciences literature. We identified empirical research articles indexed in PubMed from 1/1/2000-9/1/2021 that examined any of 18 pre-specified firearm policies and extracted key study elements, including the exposure (firearm policy), outcomes, potential confounders adjusted for in analyses, and study approach (i.e., static, uncontrolled pre-post, and controlled pre-post). There was wide variation in potential confounders within study approach-policy-outcome combinations. The most common potential confounders included sociodemographic and economic variables, rurality/urbanicity, violent crime, law enforcement-related variables, alcohol use, and firearm access (mostly measured via proxies for firearm ownership). Firearm policies other than the policy being evaluated were included in the adjustment set in 23-44% of studies, depending on the study approach. Confounder selection was most often said to be based on prior research (n=49, 40%) or not explicitly stated (n=48, 39%). This scoping review provides a comprehensive resource for critically appraising the firearm policy literature and offers considerations to support more rigorous confounding control in future firearm policy research.

Language: en