Loaded questions: Internet commenters' opinions on physician-patient firearm safety conversations

Christopher E. Knoepke, Amanda Allen, Megan L. Ranney, Garen J Wintemute, Daniel D. Matlock, Marian E. Betz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Medical and public health societies advocate that healthcare providers (HCPs) counsel at-risk patients to reduce firearm injury risk. Anonymous online media comments often contain extreme viewpoints and may therefore help in understanding challenges of firearm safety counseling. To help inform injury prevention efforts, we sought to examine commenters' stated opinions regarding firearm safety counseling HCPs. Methods: Qualitative descriptive analysis of online comments posted folowing news items (in May- June, 2016) about a peer-reviewed publication addressing when and how HCPs should counsel patients regarding firearms. Results: Among 871 comments posted by 522 individuals, most (57%) were generally negative toward firearm discussions, 17% were positive, and 26% were neutral/unclear. Two major categories and multiple themes emerged. "Areas of agreement" included that discussions may be valuable (1) when addressing risk of harm to self or others, (2) in pediatric injury prevention, and (3) as general safety education (without direct questioning), and that (4) HCPs lack gun safety and cultural knowledge. "Areas of tension" included whether (1) firearms are a public health issue, (2) counseling is effective prevention practice, (3) suicide could/should be prevented, and (4) firearm safety counseling is within HCPs' purview. Conclusion: Among this set of commenters with likely extreme viewpoints, opinions were generally negative toward firearm safety conversations, but with some support in specific situations. Providing education, counseling, or materials without asking about firearm ownership was encouraged. Engaging firearm advocates when developing materials may enhance the acceptability of prevention activities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)903-912
Number of pages10
JournalWestern Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume18
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

Fingerprint

Firearms
Patient Safety
Internet
Physicians
Health Personnel
Counseling
Safety
Wounds and Injuries
Public Health
Education
Ownership
Suicide
Publications
Pediatrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Loaded questions : Internet commenters' opinions on physician-patient firearm safety conversations. / Knoepke, Christopher E.; Allen, Amanda; Ranney, Megan L.; Wintemute, Garen J; Matlock, Daniel D.; Betz, Marian E.

In: Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 5, 01.08.2017, p. 903-912.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Knoepke, Christopher E. ; Allen, Amanda ; Ranney, Megan L. ; Wintemute, Garen J ; Matlock, Daniel D. ; Betz, Marian E. / Loaded questions : Internet commenters' opinions on physician-patient firearm safety conversations. In: Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 18, No. 5. pp. 903-912.
@article{6581d397ff264838b799882f6b120a6e,
title = "Loaded questions: Internet commenters' opinions on physician-patient firearm safety conversations",
abstract = "Introduction: Medical and public health societies advocate that healthcare providers (HCPs) counsel at-risk patients to reduce firearm injury risk. Anonymous online media comments often contain extreme viewpoints and may therefore help in understanding challenges of firearm safety counseling. To help inform injury prevention efforts, we sought to examine commenters' stated opinions regarding firearm safety counseling HCPs. Methods: Qualitative descriptive analysis of online comments posted folowing news items (in May- June, 2016) about a peer-reviewed publication addressing when and how HCPs should counsel patients regarding firearms. Results: Among 871 comments posted by 522 individuals, most (57{\%}) were generally negative toward firearm discussions, 17{\%} were positive, and 26{\%} were neutral/unclear. Two major categories and multiple themes emerged. {"}Areas of agreement{"} included that discussions may be valuable (1) when addressing risk of harm to self or others, (2) in pediatric injury prevention, and (3) as general safety education (without direct questioning), and that (4) HCPs lack gun safety and cultural knowledge. {"}Areas of tension{"} included whether (1) firearms are a public health issue, (2) counseling is effective prevention practice, (3) suicide could/should be prevented, and (4) firearm safety counseling is within HCPs' purview. Conclusion: Among this set of commenters with likely extreme viewpoints, opinions were generally negative toward firearm safety conversations, but with some support in specific situations. Providing education, counseling, or materials without asking about firearm ownership was encouraged. Engaging firearm advocates when developing materials may enhance the acceptability of prevention activities.",
author = "Knoepke, {Christopher E.} and Amanda Allen and Ranney, {Megan L.} and Wintemute, {Garen J} and Matlock, {Daniel D.} and Betz, {Marian E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5811/westjem.2017.6.34849",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "903--912",
journal = "Western Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1936-900X",
publisher = "University of California",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Loaded questions

T2 - Internet commenters' opinions on physician-patient firearm safety conversations

AU - Knoepke, Christopher E.

AU - Allen, Amanda

AU - Ranney, Megan L.

AU - Wintemute, Garen J

AU - Matlock, Daniel D.

AU - Betz, Marian E.

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Introduction: Medical and public health societies advocate that healthcare providers (HCPs) counsel at-risk patients to reduce firearm injury risk. Anonymous online media comments often contain extreme viewpoints and may therefore help in understanding challenges of firearm safety counseling. To help inform injury prevention efforts, we sought to examine commenters' stated opinions regarding firearm safety counseling HCPs. Methods: Qualitative descriptive analysis of online comments posted folowing news items (in May- June, 2016) about a peer-reviewed publication addressing when and how HCPs should counsel patients regarding firearms. Results: Among 871 comments posted by 522 individuals, most (57%) were generally negative toward firearm discussions, 17% were positive, and 26% were neutral/unclear. Two major categories and multiple themes emerged. "Areas of agreement" included that discussions may be valuable (1) when addressing risk of harm to self or others, (2) in pediatric injury prevention, and (3) as general safety education (without direct questioning), and that (4) HCPs lack gun safety and cultural knowledge. "Areas of tension" included whether (1) firearms are a public health issue, (2) counseling is effective prevention practice, (3) suicide could/should be prevented, and (4) firearm safety counseling is within HCPs' purview. Conclusion: Among this set of commenters with likely extreme viewpoints, opinions were generally negative toward firearm safety conversations, but with some support in specific situations. Providing education, counseling, or materials without asking about firearm ownership was encouraged. Engaging firearm advocates when developing materials may enhance the acceptability of prevention activities.

AB - Introduction: Medical and public health societies advocate that healthcare providers (HCPs) counsel at-risk patients to reduce firearm injury risk. Anonymous online media comments often contain extreme viewpoints and may therefore help in understanding challenges of firearm safety counseling. To help inform injury prevention efforts, we sought to examine commenters' stated opinions regarding firearm safety counseling HCPs. Methods: Qualitative descriptive analysis of online comments posted folowing news items (in May- June, 2016) about a peer-reviewed publication addressing when and how HCPs should counsel patients regarding firearms. Results: Among 871 comments posted by 522 individuals, most (57%) were generally negative toward firearm discussions, 17% were positive, and 26% were neutral/unclear. Two major categories and multiple themes emerged. "Areas of agreement" included that discussions may be valuable (1) when addressing risk of harm to self or others, (2) in pediatric injury prevention, and (3) as general safety education (without direct questioning), and that (4) HCPs lack gun safety and cultural knowledge. "Areas of tension" included whether (1) firearms are a public health issue, (2) counseling is effective prevention practice, (3) suicide could/should be prevented, and (4) firearm safety counseling is within HCPs' purview. Conclusion: Among this set of commenters with likely extreme viewpoints, opinions were generally negative toward firearm safety conversations, but with some support in specific situations. Providing education, counseling, or materials without asking about firearm ownership was encouraged. Engaging firearm advocates when developing materials may enhance the acceptability of prevention activities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027833067&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027833067&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5811/westjem.2017.6.34849

DO - 10.5811/westjem.2017.6.34849

M3 - Article

C2 - 28874943

AN - SCOPUS:85027833067

VL - 18

SP - 903

EP - 912

JO - Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 1936-900X

IS - 5

ER -