No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
BACKGROUND: Preventing firearm-involved injuries is a critical public health priority. Firearm locking devices can prevent firearm injuries, such as suicide and unintentional shootings, as well as theft. Various firearm locking devices exist; however, little is known about firearm owners' preferred locking devices for secure firearm storage. In this systematic review, we examined existing literature on preferred locking devices for secure storage of personal firearms among United States (US) firearm owners with the purpose of understanding practical implications and needs for future research. METHODS: We searched 8 major databases, as well as the grey literature, for English-language sources published on or before January 24, 2023, that empirically examined firearm locking device preferences. Following PRISMA guidelines, coders independently screened and reviewed 797 sources using pre-determined criteria. Overall, 38 records met inclusion criteria and were included in this review. RESULTS: The majority of studies measure and report on participant use of various types of locking devices, but few go on to measure preference between device options and the attributes and features that may contribute to an individual's preference. Included studies suggest that a preference for larger devices, such as lockboxes and gun safes, may exist among US firearm owners. CONCLUSIONS: Review of included studies suggests that current prevention efforts may not be aligned with firearm owners' preferences. Additionally, findings from this systematic review emphasize the need for additional methodological rigorous research to understand firearm locking device preferences. Expanded knowledge in this area will result in actionable data and foundational best practices for programming that encourages behavior change concerning secure storage of personal firearms to prevent injury and death.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.