BACKGROUND
This study aimed to evaluate the patterns of firearm violence against children before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the patterns of specific types of firearm violence against children over time (2016–2020).
METHODS
Retrospective firearm violence data were obtained from the Gun Violence Archive. The rate of firearm violence was weighted per 100,000 children. A scatterplot was created to depict the rate of total annual child-involved shooting incidents over time; with a linear trendline fit to 2016 to 2019 data to show projected versus actual 2020 firearm violence. All 50 states were categorized into either “strong gun law” (n = 25) or “weak gun law” (n = 25) cohorts. Multivariate linear regressions were performed for number of child-involved shootings over time.
RESULTS
There were a total of 1,076 child-involved shootings in 2020, 811 in 2019, and 803 in 2018. The median total child-involved shooting incidents per month per 100,000 children increased from 2018 to 2020 (0.095 vs. 0.124,
p
= 0.003) and from 2019 to 2020 (0.097 vs. 0.124,
p
= 0.010). Child killed by adult incidents also increased in 2020 compared with 2018 (
p
= 0.024) and 2019 (
p
= 0.049). The scatterplot demonstrates that total child-involved shootings in addition to both fatal and nonfatal firearm violence incidents exceeded the projected number of incidents extrapolated from 2016 to 2019 data. Multivariate linear regression demonstrated that, compared with weak gun law states, strong gun law states were associated with decreased monthly total child-involved shooting incidents between 2018 and 2020 (
p
< 0.001), as well as between 2019 and 2020 (
p
< 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Child-involved shooting incidents increased significantly in 2020 surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that gun law strength was associated with a decreased rate of monthly child-involved firearm violence, public health and legislative efforts should be made to protect this vulnerable population from exposure to firearms.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Epidemiological, level III.
Background The impacts of social stressors on violence during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are unknown. We hypothesized that firearm purchases and violence would increase surrounding the pandemic. This study determined the impact of COVID-19 and shelter-in-place (SIP) orders on firearm purchases and incidents in the United States (US) and New York State (NYS). Methods Scatterplots reflected trends in firearm purchases, incidents, and deaths over a 16-month period (January 2019 to April 2020). Bivariate comparisons of SIP and non-SIP jurisdictions before and after SIP (February 2020 vs. April 2020) and April 2020 vs. April 2019 were performed with the Mann-Whitney U test. Results The incidence of COVID-19 in the US increased between February and April 2020 from 24 to 1 067 660 and in NYS from 0 to 304 372. When comparing February to March to April in the US, firearm purchases increased 33.6% then decreased 22.0%, whereas firearm incidents increased 12.2% then again increased by 3.6% and firearm deaths increased 23.8% then decreased in April by 3.8%. In NYS, comparing February to March to April 2020, firearm purchases increased 87.6% then decreased 54.8%, firearm incidents increased 110.1% then decreased 30.8%, and firearm deaths increased 57.1% then again increased by 6.1%. In both SIP and non-SIP jurisdictions, April 2020 firearm purchases, incidents, deaths, and injuries were similar to April 2019 and February 2020 (all P = NS). Discussion Coronavirus disease 2019–related stressors may have triggered an increase in firearm purchases nationally and within NYS in March 2020. Firearm incidents also increased in NYS. SIP orders had no effect on firearm purchases and firearm violence.
Objectives
Double fascicular transfer is argued to result in improved elbow flexion compared to the traditional ulnar fascicular transfer because it reinnervates both the biceps and the brachialis. This study seeks to determine if double fascicular transfer should be preferred over ulnar fascicular transfer to restore elbow flexion in patients with upper trunk brachial plexus injuries (BPI) by analyzing the current database of literature on the topic.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting Medical Research Council (MRC) scores on individual patients undergoing ulnar fascicular transfer and double fascicular transfer (ulnar and median nerve fascicle donors). Patients were excluded if: age < 18 years old and follow‐up <12 months. Demographics obtained include age, sex, extent of injury (C5‐C6/C5‐C7), preoperative interval, procedure type, and follow‐up time. Outcomes included absolute MRC score and ability to achieve MRC score ≥3 and ≥4. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were completed to evaluate predictors of postoperative outcomes.
Results
Eighteen studies (176 patients) were included for pooled analysis. Patients that underwent double fascicular transfer had a higher percentage of patients attain a MRC score ≥ 4 compared to ulnar fascicular transfer subjects (83.0% vs. 63.3%, p = .013). Double fascicular transfer was a predictor of achieving high MRC scores (OR = 2.829, p = .015). Multivariate analysis showed that procedure type was the only near significant predictor of ability to obtain MRC ≥4 (OR: 2.338, p = .054).
Conclusions
This analysis demonstrates that double fascicular transfer is associated with superior postoperative outcomes and should be performed for restoring elbow flexion.
On March 11, 2020, the infection caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) virus was declared a pandemic. Throughout this pandemic, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have experienced difficulties stemming from poor communications, resource scarcity, lack of transparency, disbelief, and threats to the safety of their loved ones, their patients, and themselves. As part of these hardships, negative statements have been heard repeatedly. This paper describes 11 scenarios of unhelpful and dysfunctional messages heard by the authors and their colleagues during the COVID‐19 pandemic, reported to us by a combination of peers, administrative leadership, and the public. We explain why not to use such messaging, and we suggest more helpful and compassionate expressions based upon recommendations published by scientific organizations and well‐established psychological principles. The first 10 scenarios discussed include (1) lack of understanding regarding the extent of the pandemic; (2) shaming over not seeing patients in person; (3) lack of clear and consistent communication from leadership on pandemic‐related practice changes; (4) opinions that personal protective equipment (PPE) use by HCPs causes fear or is unnecessary; (5) forcing in‐person care without appropriate PPE; (6) the risk of exposure to asymptomatic individuals as it relates to opening clinics; (7) media gag orders; (8) pay and benefit reductions; (9) spreading of misinformation about the COVID‐19 pandemic; and (10) workload expectations. The 11th scenario addresses HCPs’ psychological and physical reactions to this challenging and prolonged stressful situation. We close by discussing the need for support and compassion at this difficult and unpredictable time and by offering suggestions to foster resilience and feelings of self‐efficacy among HCPs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.