No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Homicide is a major cause of death and contributes to health disparities in the United States. This burden overwhelmingly affects people from racial and ethnic minority populations as homicide occurs more often in neighborhoods with high proportions of racial and ethnic minority residents. Research has identified that environmental factors contribute to variation in homicide rates between neighborhoods; however, it is not clear why some neighborhoods with high concentrations of racial and ethnic minority residents have high homicide rates while neighborhoods with similar demographic compositions do not. The aim of this study was to assess whether relative socioeconomic disadvantage, (i.e., income inequality), or absolute socioeconomic disadvantage (i.e., income) measured at the ZIP code- and state-levels, is associated with high homicide rates in US ZIP codes, independent of racial and ethnic composition. Methods This ecological case–control study compared median household income and income inequality in 250 ZIP codes with the highest homicide rate in our sample in 2017 (cases) to 250 ZIP codes that did not experience any homicide deaths in 2017 (controls). Cases were matched to controls 1:1 based on demographic composition. Variables were measured at both the ZIP code- and state-levels. Results Lower median household income at the ZIP code-level contributed most substantially to the homicide rate. Income inequality at the state-level, however, was additionally significant when controlling for both ZIP code- and state-level factors. Conclusions Area-based interventions that improve absolute measures of ZIP code socioeconomic disadvantage may reduce gaps in homicide rates.

ImportanceFirearm injury is a major public health burden in the US, and yet there is no single, validated national data source to study community firearm violence, including firearm homicide and nonfatal shootings that result from interpersonal violence.ObjectiveTo assess the validity of the Gun Violence Archive as a source of data on events of community firearm violence and to examine the characteristics of individuals injured in shootings.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional observational study compared data on community firearm violence from the Gun Violence Archive with publicly available police department data, which were assumed to be the reference standard, between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Cities included in the study (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Cincinnati, Ohio) had a population of greater than 300 000 people according to the 2020 US Census and had publicly available shooting data from the city police department. A large city was defined as having a population greater than or equal to 500 000 (ie, Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago). Data analysis was performed in December 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresEvents of community firearm violence from the Gun Violence Archive were matched to police department shootings by date and location. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of the data were calculated (0.9-1.0, excellent; 0.8-0.9, good; 0.7-0.8, fair; 0.6-0.7, poor; and <0.6, failed).ResultsA total of 26 679 and 32 588 shooting events were documented in the Gun Violence Archive and the police department databases, respectively, during the study period. The overall sensitivity of the Gun Violence Archive over the 6-year period was 81.1%, and the positive predictive value was 99.0%. The sensitivity steadily improved over time. Shootings involving multiple individuals and those involving women and children were less likely to be missing from the Gun Violence Archive, suggesting a systematic missingness.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings support the use of the Gun Violence Archive in large cities for research requiring its unique advantages (ie, spatial resolution, timeliness, and geographic coverage), albeit with caution regarding a more granular examination of epidemiology given its apparent bias toward shootings involving multiple persons and those involving women and children.

No abstract