Vivian H Lyons1,2, Avanti Adhia2,3, Caitlin Moe2,4, Mary A Kernic4, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar2,4, Frederick P Rivara2,3,4. 1. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program, Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine differences among intimate partner homicides (IPH) by whether or not a firearm was used in and whether a protective order (PO) was filed prior to IPH. METHOD: We identified all incidents of IPH recorded in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003-2018, based on the relationship between victim and perpetrator. We characterized incidents, perpetrators and victims in IPH cases by whether or not a firearm was used, and whether a PO had been sought or issued prior to the IPH. RESULTS: We identified 8,375 IPH incidents with a total of 9,130 victims. Overall 306 (3.3%) victims were killed in a firearm IPH with PO, 4,519 (53.9%) in a firearm IPH without PO, 176 (2.1%) in a non-firearm IPH with PO and 3,416 (40.7%) in a non-firearm IPH without PO. Based on review of incident narratives, 5.4% (n=451) of incidents involved a previously-granted or sought PO, and none of which had explicitly mentioned firearm removal as a part of the PO. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of victims were killed with a firearm. Prior literature suggests that POs with firearm removal may be effective strategies for reducing risk of IPH, but we found no documentation in the narratives that firearm removal was a condition in the POs identified. As very few IPH narratives included documentation of a PO, it is likely that ascertainment of PO status is incomplete and could be an area for improvement in NVDRS data collection efforts.
PURPOSE: To determine differences among intimate partner homicides (IPH) by whether or not a firearm was used in and whether a protective order (PO) was filed prior to IPH. METHOD: We identified all incidents of IPH recorded in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003-2018, based on the relationship between victim and perpetrator. We characterized incidents, perpetrators and victims in IPH cases by whether or not a firearm was used, and whether a PO had been sought or issued prior to the IPH. RESULTS: We identified 8,375 IPH incidents with a total of 9,130 victims. Overall 306 (3.3%) victims were killed in a firearm IPH with PO, 4,519 (53.9%) in a firearm IPH without PO, 176 (2.1%) in a non-firearm IPH with PO and 3,416 (40.7%) in a non-firearm IPH without PO. Based on review of incident narratives, 5.4% (n=451) of incidents involved a previously-granted or sought PO, and none of which had explicitly mentioned firearm removal as a part of the PO. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of victims were killed with a firearm. Prior literature suggests that POs with firearm removal may be effective strategies for reducing risk of IPH, but we found no documentation in the narratives that firearm removal was a condition in the POs identified. As very few IPH narratives included documentation of a PO, it is likely that ascertainment of PO status is incomplete and could be an area for improvement in NVDRS data collection efforts.
Authors: Garen J Wintemute; Shannon Frattaroli; Barbara E Claire; Katherine A Vittes; Daniel W Webster Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Catherine L Kothari; Karin V Rhodes; James A Wiley; Jeffrey Fink; Scott Overholt; Melissa E Dichter; Steven C Marcus; Catherine Cerulli Journal: J Interpers Violence Date: 2012-04-04
Authors: Emiko Petrosky; Janet M Blair; Carter J Betz; Katherine A Fowler; Shane P D Jack; Bridget H Lyons Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 17.586