Fischer Samuel, Miller Matthew, Barber Catherine, Azrael Deborah
Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115-5000, USA.
Inj Epidemiol. 2024 Jul 2;11(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s40621-024-00499-0.
In assigning manner of death (MOD) for inclusion on death certificates, medical examiners and coroners do not always apply uniform criteria. Previous research indicates surveillance statistics based on death certificates, such as the National Vital Statistics System, grossly miscount unintentional firearm deaths. The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) has taken steps to reduce variability in manner of death coding by providing uniform criteria for assigning an "abstractor manner of death" (AMD). AMD has five categories: unintentional, suicide, homicide, undetermined, and legal intervention homicide. A previous study found good accuracy of AMD coding for unintentional firearm deaths, all ages, 2003-2006, but a more recent study reported that the NVDRS undercounted self- and other-inflicted unintentional firearm deaths in which both the victim and shooter (for other-inflicted injuries) were under age 15 (2009-2018).
We replicated the recent study's sample population, identifying 924 NVDRS incidents from 2009 to 2018 in which both victim and, for other-inflicted injuries, shooter age was under 15 and AMD was homicide, suicide, unintentional or undetermined (there were no legal intervention deaths to children). We assigned a researcher-adjudicated MOD (RMD) by reviewing incident narratives. RMD was compared with AMD and with manner recorded on the death certificate. Based on RMD as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values positive and negative of the AMD for unintentional childhood firearm deaths were, respectively, 90%, 99%, 98% and 96%; 86% (24/28) of false negatives were coded by abstractors as homicides. By contrast, death certificate manner had relatively poor sensitivity (63%).
In our sample of 924 deaths, the abstractor manner of death generally agreed with researcher-adjudicated manner of death, though not perfectly, missing 10% of researcher-adjudicated unintentional deaths, mostly because abstractors coded these unintentional deaths as homicides. A sizable minority of false negatives were unintentional deaths where the narrative explicitly noted that adult negligence contributed to a child's unintentional shooting death. While AMD coding in NVDRS is good, it could be improved if NVDRS coding guidelines explicitly affirmed that potential prosecution for negligent manslaughter is not a contraindication to an AMD of unintentional, provided the firearm was not used to intentionally harm, threaten, or coerce.
在确定死亡方式(MOD)以列入死亡证明时,法医和验尸官并不总是采用统一的标准。先前的研究表明,基于死亡证明的监测统计数据,如国家生命统计系统,严重误报了非故意枪支死亡人数。国家暴力死亡报告系统(NVDRS)已采取措施,通过提供统一的标准来确定“摘要员死亡方式”(AMD),以减少死亡方式编码的变异性。AMD有五个类别:非故意、自杀、他杀、未确定和合法干预他杀。一项先前的研究发现,2003 - 2006年所有年龄段的非故意枪支死亡的AMD编码准确性良好,但最近的一项研究报告称,NVDRS低估了2009 - 2018年受害者和射手(对于他人造成的伤害)均未满15岁的自伤和他伤非故意枪支死亡人数。
我们复制了最近这项研究的样本人群,从2009年至2018年确定了924起NVDRS事件,其中受害者以及对于他人造成的伤害而言射手年龄均未满15岁,且AMD为他杀、自杀、非故意或未确定(没有儿童因合法干预死亡的情况)。我们通过审查事件叙述来确定研究人员判定的死亡方式(RMD)。将RMD与AMD以及死亡证明上记录的死亡方式进行比较。以RMD作为金标准,AMD对于儿童非故意枪支死亡的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为90%、99%、98%和96%;86%(24/28)的假阴性被摘要员编码为他杀。相比之下,死亡证明上的死亡方式敏感性相对较差(63%)。
在我们的924例死亡样本中,摘要员死亡方式总体上与研究人员判定的死亡方式一致,但并不完美,遗漏了10%的研究人员判定为非故意的死亡,主要是因为摘要员将这些非故意死亡编码为他杀。相当一部分假阴性是非故意死亡,其叙述明确指出成人疏忽导致了儿童非故意枪击死亡。虽然NVDRS中的AMD编码良好,但如果NVDRS编码指南明确肯定,对于过失杀人的潜在起诉并不妨碍将AMD判定为非故意,前提是枪支未被用于故意伤害、威胁或胁迫,那么编码可以得到改进。