Epidemiol Rev. 2016;38(1):111-24. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxv006. Epub 2016 Jan 13.
Despite supportive evidence for an association between safe firearm storage and lower risk of firearm injury, the effectiveness of interventions that promote such practices remains unclear. Guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, we conducted a systematic review of randomized and quasi-experimental controlled studies of safe firearm storage interventions using a prespecified search of 9 electronic databases with no restrictions on language, year, or location from inception through May 27, 2015. Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by 2 investigators. The Cochrane Collaboration's domain-specific tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Seven clinic- and community-based studies published in 2000-2012 using counseling with or without safety device provision met the inclusion criteria. All 3 studies that provided a safety device significantly improved firearm storage practices, while 3 of 4 studies that provided no safety device failed to show an effect. Heterogeneity of studies precluded conducting a meta-analysis. We discuss methodological considerations, gaps in the literature, and recommendations for conducting future studies. Although additional studies are needed, the totality of evidence suggests that counseling augmented by device provision can effectively encourage individuals to store their firearms safely.
尽管有证据表明安全的枪支储存与降低枪支伤害风险之间存在关联，但促进这些做法的干预措施的有效性仍不清楚。我们遵循《系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目》（PRISMA）清单，对安全枪支储存干预措施的随机和准实验对照研究进行了系统评价，使用预先指定的搜索在 9 个电子数据库中进行，没有对语言、年份或地点进行限制，从成立到 2015 年 5 月 27 日。研究选择和数据提取由 2 名调查员独立进行。使用 Cochrane 协作组织特定领域的工具评估纳入研究的质量。2000 年至 2012 年期间发表的 7 项基于诊所和社区的研究符合纳入标准，这些研究使用咨询和/或安全装置提供。提供安全装置的 3 项研究均显著改善了枪支储存做法，而提供无安全装置的 4 项研究中的 3 项则未能显示出效果。研究的异质性使得无法进行荟萃分析。我们讨论了方法学方面的考虑因素、文献中的差距以及对开展未来研究的建议。尽管需要更多的研究，但现有证据表明，通过设备提供的咨询可以有效地鼓励个人安全储存枪支。
