BACKGROUND: Firearm-related injuries and deaths continue to be a substantial public health burden in the US. The purpose of this study was to describe the results of a survey of US members of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) on their practices, attitudes, and beliefs about firearms and firearm policies. The survey was designed to gain a representative understanding of the views of all US ACS members to help inform ACS positions related to firearm injury prevention. STUDY DESIGN: A professional survey firm was engaged to facilitate the design of the survey and to support a web-based platform. Data collection through an anonymous survey began in July 2018, with the survey closing in September 2018. Survey data were weighted and analyses included descriptive and bivariate statistics. RESULTS: There were 54,761 ACS members invited to participate in the survey. Of those, 11,147 respondents completed the survey, for an overall response rate of 20.4%. Respondents were questioned on firearm experience, purpose of firearm ownership, opinions on firearm ownership, and importance of ACS support for specific firearm legislation. Survey results varied by practice and training location, practice type, military experience, gender, age, presence of children in the home, level of training, and race and ethnicity. Most survey respondents were ACS fellows (n = 7,579 [68%]), male (n = 8,671 [77.8%]), and White (n = 8,639 [77.5%]). Forty-two percent of respondents keep guns in their home. Seventy-five percent of respondents believe that it is very or extremely important for the ACS to support policy initiatives to lower the incidence of firearm injury. CONCLUSIONS: There is broad support among ACS members for many initiatives related to firearm injury prevention. The degree of support for these measures varies based on both the specific initiative and demographic characteristics. The results align with the ACS strategy of healthcare professionals working together to better understand and address the root causes of violence, and simultaneously working together to make firearm ownership as safe as reasonably possible.

Motor vehicle crashes are one of the leading causes of death among teenagers. Many of these deaths are due to preventable causes, including impaired and distracted driving. You Drink, You Drive, You Lose (YDYDYL) is a prevention program to educate high school students about the consequences of impaired and distracted driving. YDYDYL was conducted at a public high school in Southern Nevada in March 2020. A secondary data analysis was conducted to compare knowledge and attitudes of previous participants with first-time participants. Independent-samples-t test and χ² test/Fisher’s exact test with post-contingency analysis were used to compare pre-event responses between students who had attended the program one year prior and students who had not. Significance was set at p < 0.05. A total of 349 students participated in the survey and were included for analysis; 177 had attended the program previously (50.7%) and 172 had not (49.3%). The mean age of previous participants and first-time participants was 16.2 (SD ± 1.06 years) and 14.9 (SD ± 0.92 years), respectively. Statistically significant differences in several self-reported baseline behaviors and attitudinal responses were found between the two groups; for example, 47.4% of previous participants compared to 29.4% of first-time participants disagreed that reading text messages only at a stop light was acceptable. Students were also asked how likely they were to intervene if a friend or family member was practicing unsafe driving behaviors; responses were similar between the two groups. The baseline behaviors and attitudes of participants regarding impaired and distracted driving were more protective among previous participants compared to first-time participants, suggesting the program results in long-term positive changes in behaviors and attitudes. The results of this secondary retrospective study may be useful for informing the implementation of future impaired and distracted driving prevention programs.

INTRODUCTION: While the United States has high quality data on firearm-related deaths, less information is available on those who arrive at trauma centers alive, especially those discharged from the emergency department. This study sought to describe characteristics of patients arriving to trauma centers alive following a firearm injury, postulating that significant differences in firearm injury intent might provide insights into injury prevention strategies. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients treated for firearm-related injuries at 128 US trauma centers from March 2021 to February 2022. Data collected included patient-level sociodemographic, injury and clinical characteristics, community characteristics, and context of injury. The outcome of interest was the association between these factors and the intent of firearm injury. Measures of urbanicity, community distress, and strength of state firearm laws were used to characterize patient communities. RESULTS: A total of 15,232 patients presented with firearm-related injuries across 128 centers in 41 states. Overall, 9.5% of patients died, and deaths were more common among law enforcement and self-inflicted firearm injuries (80.9% and 50.5%, respectively). These patients were also more likely to have a history of mental illness. Self-inflicted firearm injuries were more common in older White men from rural and less distressed communities, whereas firearm assaults were more common in younger Black men from urban and more distressed communities. Unintentional injuries were more common among younger patients and in states with lower firearm safety grades, whereas law enforcement–related injuries occurred most often in unemployed patients with a history of mental illness. CONCLUSION: Injury, clinical, sociodemographic, and community characteristics among patients injured by a firearm significantly differed between intents. With the goal of reducing firearm-related deaths, strategies and interventions need to be tailored to include community improvement and services that address specific patient risk factors for firearm injury intent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

BACKGROUND: Young drivers (YDs) are disproportionately injured and killed in motor vehicle crashes throughout the United States. Nationally, YDs aged 16 to 20 years constituted nearly 9% of all traffic-related fatalities in 2018. A Nevada Advanced Driver Training (ADT) program for YDs aims to reduce YD traffic injuries and fatalities through four modules taught by professional drivers. The program modules include classroom-based didactic lessons and hands-on driving exercises intended to improve safe driving knowledge and behaviors. The overarching purpose of this study was to determine if the Nevada ADT program achieved its objectives for improving safe driving knowledge and behaviors based on program-provided data. A secondary purpose of this study was to provide recommendations to improve program efficiency, delivery, and evaluation. The findings of this study would serve as a basis to develop and evaluate future ADT interventions. METHODS: The exploratory mixed methods outcome evaluation used secondary data collected during three weekend events in December 2018 and March 2019. The study population consisted of high school students with a driver’s license or learner’s permit. Pretests/posttests and preevent questionnaires on student driving history were matched and linked via personal identifiers. The pretests/posttests measured changes in knowledge of safe driving behaviors. This study used descriptive statistics, dependent samples t test, Pearson’s r correlation coefficient, and χ² (McNemar’s test) with significance set at p = 0.05, 95% confidence interval. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS version 24 (Armonk, NY). Qualitative data analysis consisted of content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Responses from YD participants (N = 649) were provided for analysis. Aggregate YD participant knowledge of safe driving behaviors increased from a mean of 43.9% (pretest) to 74.9% (posttest). CONCLUSION: The program achieved its intended outcomes of improving safe driving knowledge and behaviors among its target population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, Level V.

Background/Objectives: Persistent inequities in healthcare experiences and outcomes among marginalized racial/ethnic groups and sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations have been well documented. However, disparities in perceptions of discrimination and bias between patients and health providers remain insufficiently understood. This review synthesizes the current evidence on how these groups differently perceive discrimination, how bias manifests in clinical encounters, and how intersecting identities shape healthcare experiences. Methods: A comprehensive review using SANRA guidelines examined racial/ethnic discrimination, SGM-related bias, provider implicit attitudes, minority stress processes, and structural determinants of inequity in healthcare settings. Articles were identified through systematic search strategies across major databases, and their conceptual, methodological, and theoretical contributions were analyzed. Results: Across studies, marginalized patients consistently reported discrimination, stigma, and mistrust in healthcare, whereas providers often underestimated the prevalence and impact of these experiences. Evidence indicates that implicit pro-White biases among providers influence communication quality, clinical decision-making, and patient comfort. Structural racism and intersecting minority statuses further compound disparities, contributing to delayed care, unmet health needs, and poorer outcomes. Limited alignment between patient and provider perceptions suggests a gap in recognition of inequitable treatment and its drivers. Conclusions: Healthcare inequities arise from interconnected, interpersonal, and structural mechanisms. Addressing these disparities requires multilevel interventions targeting provider training, institutional policy reform, and system-level barriers. Integrating both patient and provider perspectives is essential for developing equitable, affirming models of care and improving health outcomes for racial/ethnic and SGM populations.