Harms and Benefits Inventory (HBI): initial validation of a novel assessment of perceived harms and benefits of firearm policies and practices.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Injury Prevention Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1136/ip-2023-045073
Damion Grasso, Kerri M Raissian, L Doucette, Austen Bradley McGuire, Jennifer Necci Dineen
{"title":"Harms and Benefits Inventory (HBI): initial validation of a novel assessment of perceived harms and benefits of firearm policies and practices.","authors":"Damion Grasso, Kerri M Raissian, L Doucette, Austen Bradley McGuire, Jennifer Necci Dineen","doi":"10.1136/ip-2023-045073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Understanding gun owners' perceptions of potential firearm policies' harms and benefits is critical to successful policy development and implementation. We used national survey data to develop and validate a novel instrument, the Harms and Benefits Inventory (HBI), for policy-makers and advocates to better consider the citizen perspective.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a nationally representative survey of American gun owners and non-owners (N=2007) using the Social Science Research Solutions probability panel. The survey included 31 candidate HBI items and questions about gun ownership and exposure, storage and carry behaviours, policy positions, and sociodemographic characteristics. Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted on HBI items from a randomly selected subsample (N=1003) and then tested with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on data from the second half of the sample (N=1004).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The best-fitting EFA model was upheld in the CFA and included 21 items with 5 underlying factors. Underlying factors included: (1) firearm regulation, cost and accessibility, (2) special restrictions, (3) permit and education, (4) relaxed restrictions and (5) and hobby and sport. Internal consistency was good to excellent within each of the five scales. Validity was supported by correlations between HBI scales and survey questions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Findings support the validity of the HBI in assessing perceptions of potential harms and benefits of firearm policies and practices. Understanding perceptions of potential harms and benefits of gun policies at the time of development or implementation can improve uptake and reduce unintended consequences of these policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":13682,"journal":{"name":"Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"474-480"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11672043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2023-045073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding gun owners' perceptions of potential firearm policies' harms and benefits is critical to successful policy development and implementation. We used national survey data to develop and validate a novel instrument, the Harms and Benefits Inventory (HBI), for policy-makers and advocates to better consider the citizen perspective.

Method: We conducted a nationally representative survey of American gun owners and non-owners (N=2007) using the Social Science Research Solutions probability panel. The survey included 31 candidate HBI items and questions about gun ownership and exposure, storage and carry behaviours, policy positions, and sociodemographic characteristics. Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted on HBI items from a randomly selected subsample (N=1003) and then tested with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on data from the second half of the sample (N=1004).

Results: The best-fitting EFA model was upheld in the CFA and included 21 items with 5 underlying factors. Underlying factors included: (1) firearm regulation, cost and accessibility, (2) special restrictions, (3) permit and education, (4) relaxed restrictions and (5) and hobby and sport. Internal consistency was good to excellent within each of the five scales. Validity was supported by correlations between HBI scales and survey questions.

Discussion: Findings support the validity of the HBI in assessing perceptions of potential harms and benefits of firearm policies and practices. Understanding perceptions of potential harms and benefits of gun policies at the time of development or implementation can improve uptake and reduce unintended consequences of these policies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
危害和益处清单(HBI):对枪支政策和做法的危害和益处的新评估的初步验证。
导言:了解枪支所有者对潜在枪支政策的危害和益处的看法对于政策的成功制定和实施至关重要。我们利用全国性调查数据开发并验证了一种新型工具--危害和益处清单 (HBI),供政策制定者和倡导者更好地考虑公民的观点:方法:我们利用社会科学研究解决方案概率面板对美国枪支拥有者和非拥有者(N=2007)进行了一次具有全国代表性的调查。调查包括 31 个候选 HBI 项目以及有关枪支拥有和接触、储存和携带行为、政策立场和社会人口特征的问题。对随机抽取的子样本(样本数=1003)中的 HBI 项目进行了探索性因子分析(EFA),然后对后半部样本(样本数=1004)的数据进行了确认性因子分析(CFA):最合适的 EFA 模型在 CFA 中保持不变,包括 21 个项目和 5 个基本因素。基本因素包括(1) 枪支管理、成本和可获得性,(2) 特别限制,(3) 许可和教育,(4) 宽松限制和 (5) 爱好和运动。五个量表的内部一致性良好至极佳。HBI 量表与调查问题之间的相关性也证明了其有效性:讨论:研究结果支持 HBI 在评估枪支政策和做法的潜在危害和益处方面的有效性。在制定或实施枪支政策时了解人们对这些政策潜在危害和益处的看法,可以提高人们对这些政策的接受程度并减少意外后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Injury Prevention
Injury Prevention 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
2.70%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1995, Injury Prevention has been the pre-eminent repository of original research and compelling commentary relevant to this increasingly important field. An international peer reviewed journal, it offers the best in science, policy, and public health practice to reduce the burden of injury in all age groups around the world. The journal publishes original research, opinion, debate and special features on the prevention of unintentional, occupational and intentional (violence-related) injuries. Injury Prevention is online only.
期刊最新文献
Examining contextual differences in suicide by rural-urban designation and military status, 2009-2019: a cross-sectional analysis of the National Violent Death Reporting System. Exploring the association between a periodic safe-ride program and urban alcohol-impaired driving crashes in Quebec, Canada: a cross-sectional time-series analysis. Fall-related mortality in Spain: trends and disparities by age and gender. Developing and testing the predictive validity of household firearm storage measures: insights from rural Alaska. Understanding non-fatal drowning in Victoria, Australia: a 20-year analysis of hospital admission data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1