IMPORTANCE Firearm homicide is a leading cause of injury death in the United States, and there is considerable debate over the effectiveness of firearm policies. An analysis of the effectiveness of firearm laws on firearm homicide is important to understand optimal policies to decrease firearm homicide in the United States.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between firearm laws and preventing firearm homicides in the United States.EVIDENCE REVIEW We evaluated peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2016 focusing on the association between US firearm laws and firearm homicide. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Lexis/Nexis, Sociological Abstracts, Academic Search Premier, the Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, and the references from the assembled articles. We divided laws into 5 categories: those that (1) curb gun trafficking, (2) strengthen background checks, (3) improve child safety, (4) ban military-style assault weapons, and (5) restrict firearms in public places and leniency in firearm carrying. The articles were assessed using the standardized Guide to Community Preventive Services data collection instrument and 5 additional quality metrics:(1) appropriate data source(s) and outcome measure(s) were used for the study, (2) the time frame studied was adequate, (3) appropriate statistical tests were used, (4) the analytic results were robust, and (5) the disaggregated results of control variables were consistent with the literature. FINDINGS In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe strength of firearm legislation in general, and laws related to strengthening background checks and permit-to-purchase in particular, is associated with decreased firearm homicide rates. High-quality research is important to further evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. Legislation is just 1 part of a multipronged approach that will be necessary to decrease firearm homicides in the United States.

IMPORTANCE Diversity initiatives have increased at US medical schools to address underrepresentation of minority faculty. OBJECTIVE To assess associations between minority faculty development programs at US medical schools and underrepresented minority faculty representation, recruitment, and promotion. DESIGN Secondary analysis of the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster, a database of US medical school faculty. PARTICIPANTS Full-time faculty at schools located in the 50 US states or District of Columbia and reporting data from 2000-2010. EXPOSURE Availability of school-wide programs targeted to underrepresented minority faculty in 2010. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Percentage of underrepresented minority faculty, defined as self-reported black, Hispanic, Native American, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander faculty. Percentage of underrepresented minority faculty was computed by school and year for all faculty, newly appointed faculty, and newly promoted faculty. Panel-level analyses that accounted for faculty clustering within schools were conducted and adjusted for faculty-and school-level variables.RESULTS Across all schools, the percentage of underrepresented minority faculty increased from 6.8% (95% CI, 6.7%-7.0%) in 2000 to 8.0% (95% CI, 7.8%-8.2%) in 2010. Of 124 eligible schools, 36 (29%) were identified with a minority faculty development program in 2010. Minority faculty development programs were heterogeneous in composition, number of components, and duration. Schools with minority faculty development programs had a similar increase in percentage of underrepresented minority faculty as schools without minority faculty development programs (6.5%-7.4% vs 7.0%-8.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.72-1.13]). After adjustment for faculty and school characteristics, minority faculty development programs were not associated with greater representation of minority faculty (adjusted OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.81-1.22]), recruitment (adjusted OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.83-1.15]), or promotion (adjusted OR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.91-1.30]). In subgroup analyses, schools with programs of greater intensity (present for Ն5 years and with more components) were associated with greater increases in underrepresented minority representation than schools with minority faculty development programs of less intensity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe percentage of underrepresented minority faculty increased modestly from 2000 to 2010 at US medical schools. The presence of a minority faculty development program targeted to underrepresented minority faculty was not associated with greater underrepresented minority faculty representation, recruitment, or promotion. Minority faculty development programs that were of greater intensity were associated with greater increases in underrepresented minority faculty representation.

of participants who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups in clinical trials enhances inclusivity in the scientific process and generalizability of results.OBJECTIVE To assess participant race and ethnicity in pediatric clinical trials published from 2011 to 2020. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cross-sectional study examined articles reporting pediatric clinical trials conducted in the US published in 5 leading general pediatric and 5 leading general medical journals from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESReporting of participant race and ethnicity and comparison of enrolled participants vs US census populations of pediatric racial and ethnic groups in published clinical trials. RESULTSThe study included 612 articles reporting pediatric clinical trials during the study period, with 565 618 total participants (median per trial, 200 participants [IQR, 90-571 participants]). Of the 612 articles, 486 (79.4%) reported participant race and 338 (55.2%) reported participant ethnicity. From 2011 to 2020, relative rates of reporting of participant race increased by 7.9% per year (95% CI, 0.2%-16.3% per year) and reporting of ethnicity increased by 11.4% per year (95% CI, 4.8%-18.4% per year). Among articles reporting race and ethnicity, the method of assignment was not reported in 261 of 511 articles (51.1%) and 207 of 359 articles (57.7%), respectively. Black/African American children were enrolled proportionally more than the US population of Black/African American children (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.87-1.89). Hispanic/Latino children were enrolled commensurately with the US population of Hispanic/Latino children (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03). American Indian/Alaska Native (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.85), Asian (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.55-0.57), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.72) children were enrolled significantly less compared with the respective US populations of these groups. White children were enrolled less than expected (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84-0.85) but represented 188 156 (46.0%) of participants in trials reporting race or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis cross-sectional study revealed that the proportion of published pediatric clinical trials that reported participant race and ethnicity increased from 2011 to 2020, but participant race and ethnicity were still underreported. Disparities existed in pediatric clinical trial enrollment of American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander children. The greater representation of Black/African American children compared with the US population suggests inclusive research practices that could be extended to other historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups.

Less than a third of medical schools had programs targeting underrepresented minority (URM) faculty, and those programs that existed differed in scope and goals. These findings suggest that a lack of resources and a preference for programs that target all faculty may limit the development of programs targeting URM faculty. Future research should examine whether diversity programs contribute to URM faculty recruitment and retention.