A Systematic Review of Recurrent Firearm Injury Rates in the United States

Individuals who present to the hospital for care of a firearm injury are often caught in a cycle of violence and return for care of a recurrent firearm or other violent injury.^1,2 A robust evaluation of this cycle is necessary to inform prevention strategies for recurrent injuries.³ Such public health strategies may include hospital and community-based violence intervention programs.^4–6 By accurately identifying who suffers from repeat firearm injuries, violence prevention programs can preferentially target services to high-risk individuals. 

A nationwide comprehensive public health database that provides accurate surveillance of both fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries does not exist in the United States.^7,8 Similarly, there are no extant guidelines regarding uniform data tracking and methodology for defining and evaluating recurrent firearm injury. Methodological differences make it difficult to compare recurrent injury rates across studies and hamper efforts to build a comprehensive database on the epidemiology of firearm injury, ultimately resulting in a lack of consensus on effective strategies to reduce firearm injuries.^9–12 Developing a uniform data collection and analysis process for recurrent firearm injury will allow for better understanding of the influence of various risk and protective factors on recurrent injury across communities. This will improve methodologic rigor, implementation, and evaluation of interventions designed to interrupt the cycle of violence.

To address this need, a team of researchers affiliated with the Cordell Institute fellowship program conducted a systematic review of the available peer-reviewed literature to review methodologies, data sources, and best practices in identification, calculation, and reporting of recurrent firearm injury rates in the general United States population. Of the 918 unique articles identified, 14 were selected for inclusion in the systematic review.^13–26 In our analysis, the reported recurrent firearm injury rates in the United States varied from 1% to 9.5%. 

The team observed heterogeneity in data sources and study methodologies. Firearm injury data were extracted from sources such as single-site hospital medical records to comprehensive statewide records comprising medical, law enforcement, and social security death index data. Repeat firearm-related hospital admissions were either those occurring one to 90 days from the first injury or all repeat firearm-related hospital admissions were classified as a new firearm injury by default.^{13,15,17–23,25,26} One study²⁴ applied machine learning algorithms to electronic health records to identify new firearm injuries²⁴ and one study¹⁶ allowed reinjured persons to self-identify via surveys. Studies^{13,14,17–20} included either firearm injuries regardless of intent,  only intentional injuries,^15,22 or only assault-related injuries.^{16,21,23–26} Follow-up time, defined as the period the individual was surveilled after their first injury, also varied across studies. Seven studies required a minimum follow-up time which ranged from one to five years after the index injury while the others did not.^{13,15,17,19–21,26} 

Recurrent injury rates for firearm injuries of all intents ranged from less than 1% to 8.8%^{13,14,17–20} whereas those for assault related firearm injuries ranged from 2.7% to 9.5%.^{16,21,23,25–27} Cumulative incidence rates ranged from approximately 1.5% after 5.5 years to 15.8% after 10 years, demonstrating that the risk of recurrent injury increases with time from the first injury.^17,24–26 Studies that evaluated the risk of reinjury showed significantly increased risk of recurrent injury among individuals with initial firearm-related injuries as compared to other types of violent injury.^17,26 Studies identified that males, individuals of Black race, and younger individuals have significantly higher risk of recurrent injury than their counterparts.^24,25 There is a growing body of research over the past decade in the realm of firearm injury,^14–26 which bodes well for firearm injury prevention. 

Violence intervention programs can have positive spill-over effects in the society.^28,29 Population-based evaluations can identify program effects. Our systematic review highlights the need for development, dissemination, and implementation of standard practices for evaluating recurrent firearm injury across populations. As these methods become more uniform, any difference in recurrent injury rates is more likely to be attributed to the influence of risk and protective factors. Ultimately, this information will help us better target local interventions and prevention strategies such as community and hospital-based violence intervention programs.

Our systematic review identified best practices for conducting studies and reporting on recurrent firearm injuries. If implemented, these strategies can be used to inform appropriate data sources and methodologies for extracting information from databases and identifying subsequent firearm injuries, and how to report transparent, reproducible results in a manner that increases comparability across studies. A more standardized approach for assessing firearm injury and reinjury can help inform violence intervention programs and public policies like firearm legislation.

References

1. Affinati S, Patton D, Hansen L, et al. Hospital-based violence intervention programs targeting adult populations: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma evidence-based review. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2016;1(1):e000024. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2016-000024
2. Morrissey TB, Byrds CR, Deitch EA. The Incidence of Recurrent Penetrating Trauma in an Urban Trauma Center. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1991;31(11):1536-1538.
3. Hemenway D. Importance of firearms research. Inj Prev. 2019;25(Suppl 1):i1-i1. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043330
4. Brice JM, Boyle AA. Are ED-based violence intervention programmes effective in reducing revictimisation and perpetration in victims of violence? A systematic review. Emerg Med J. 2020;37(8):489-495. doi:10.1136/emermed-2019-208970
5. Mikhail JN, Nemeth LS. Trauma Center Based Youth Violence Prevention Programs: An Integrative Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(5):500-519. doi:10.1177/1524838015584373
6. Snider C, Lee J. Youth violence secondary prevention initiatives in emergency departments: a systematic review. Can J Emerg Med. 2009;11(2):161-168. doi:10.1017/S1481803500011131
7. Hink AB. Using State Hospitalization Databases to Improve Firearm Injury Data—A Step in the Right Direction. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2115807. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15807
8. First Report of the Expert Panel on Firearms Data Infrastructure: The State of Firearms Data in 2019. NORC at the University of Chicago; 2020. PDF
9. Nygaard RM, Marek AP, Daly SR, Van Camp JM. Violent trauma recidivism: Does all violence escalate? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;44(6):851-858. doi:10.1007/s00068-017-0787-5
10. Cooper C, Eslinger D, Nash D, Al Zawahri J, Stolley P. Repeat Victims of Violence: Report of a Large Concurrent Case-control Study. Arch Surg. 2000;135(7):837-843. doi:10.1001/archsurg.135.7.837
11. Corbin TJ, Purtle J, Rich LJ, et al. The Prevalence of Trauma and Childhood Adversity in an Urban, Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Program. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013;24(3):1021-1030. doi:10.1353/hpu.2013.0120
12. Weiner J, Wiebe DJ, Richmond TS, et al. Reducing firearm violence: a research agenda. Inj Prev. 2007;13(2):80-84. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.013359
13. Kaufmann CR, Branas CC, Brawley ML. A Population-Based Study of Trauma Recidivism. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1998;45(2):325-332.
14. Davis JS, Pandya RK, Sola JE, Perez EA, Neville HL, Schulman CI. Pediatric trauma recidivism in an urban cohort. J Surg Res. 2013;182(2):326-330. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.007
15. Nanney JT, Conrad EJ, McCloskey M, Constans JI. Criminal Behavior and Repeat Violent Trauma: A Case–Control Study. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(3):395-401. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.021
16. Carter PM, Walton MA, Roehler DR, et al. Firearm Violence Among High-Risk Emergency Department Youth After an Assault Injury. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):805-815. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3572
17. Rowhani-Rahbar A, Zatzick D, Wang J, et al. Firearm-Related Hospitalization and Risk for Subsequent Violent Injury, Death, or Crime Perpetration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(7):492-500. doi:10.7326/M14-2362
18. Gibson PD, Ippolito JA, Shaath MK, Campbell CL, Fox AD, Ahmed I. Pediatric gunshot wound recidivism: Identification of at-risk youth. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(6):877-883. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001072
19. Carter PM, Cook LJ, Macy ML, et al. Individual and Neighborhood Characteristics of Children Seeking Emergency Department Care for Firearm Injuries Within the PECARN Network. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(7):803-813. doi:10.1111/acem.13200
20. de Anda H, Dibble T, Schlaepfer C, Foraker R, Mueller K. A Cross-Sectional Study of Firearm Injuries in Emergency Department Patients. Mo Med. 2018;115(5):456-462.
21. Shaahinfar A, Yen IH, Alter HJ, et al. Long-term Mortality in Pediatric Firearm Assault Survivors: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Comparative Cohort Study. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(12):1447-1457. doi:10.1111/acem.13631
22. Kao AM, Schlosser KA, Arnold MR, et al. Trauma Recidivism and Mortality Following Violent Injuries in Young Adults. J Surg Res. 2019;237:140-147. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.006
23. Bonne S, Tufariello A, Coles Z, et al. Identifying participants for inclusion in hospital-based violence intervention: An analysis of 18 years of urban firearm recidivism. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;89(1):68-73. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002680
24. Pear VA, McCort CD, Kravitz-Wirtz N, Shev AB, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Wintemute GJ. Risk factors for assaultive reinjury and death following a nonfatal firearm assault injury: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Prev Med. 2020;139:106198. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106198
25. Marshall WA, Egger ME, Pike A, et al. Recidivism rates following firearm injury as determined by a collaborative hospital and law enforcement database. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;89(2):371-376. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002746
26. Pino EC, Fontin F, James TL, Dugan E. Mechanism of penetrating injury mediates the risk of long-term adverse outcomes for survivors of violent trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022;92(3):511-519. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000003364
27. Pear VA, Castillo-Carniglia A, Kagawa RMC, Cerdá M, Wintemute GJ. Firearm mortality in California, 2000-2015: the epidemiologic importance of within-state variation. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(5):309-315.e2. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.03.003
28. Juillard C, Smith R, Anaya N, Garcia A, Kahn JG, Dicker RA. Saving lives and saving money: hospital-based violence intervention is cost-effective. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78(2):252-257; discussion 257-258. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000527
29. Purtle J, Rich LJ, Bloom SL, Rich JA, Corbin TJ. Cost-benefit analysis simulation of a hospital-based violence intervention program. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(2):162-169. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.08.030

Authors

Muhammad Shayan, Cordell Institute for Policy in Medicine & Law, Washington University in St. Louis; Daphne Lew, Division of Biostatistics, Washington University in St. Louis; Michael Mancini, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University; Randi Foraker, Division of General Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis; Michelle Doering, Bernard Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis; Kristen Mueller, Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis