The utility of homicide surveillance data is often demonstrated in evaluations of violence reduction policies. Unlike most monitored health events, there are multiple sources of information on homicide. These include data compiled by law enforcement (e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Report [SHR]) and data collected by health officials (e.g., Vital Statistics [VS] records and medical examiner files). Typically, intervention analyses employ only one of these sources. However, evidence from pilot tests of firearm-related injury surveillance systems and other research suggests the sources are not interchangeable even for well-defined outcomes such as homicide. In this paper, we compare SHR and VS data in evaluations of one-gun-a-month laws showing that analyses based on only one of these sources may lead to different conclusions than if all available data are considered. Using surveillance system data that synthesizes information from all available sources into a single set of data is likely to lead to more trustworthy conclusions when evaluating violence reduction interventions.
Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the session, the participant will be able to: 1) Understand the importance of integrating police and health data in violence-related surveillance systems; and 2) describe an evaluation of the effectiveness of one-gun-a-month laws in Virginia and Maryland.
Keywords: Surveillance, Firearms
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.