Test Post 2019

быстрые займы онлайн

быстро займ на карточку zaymi-bistro.ru кредит без верификации карты
кредит срочно на карту без отказа zaymi-bistro.ru экспресс займ онлайн заявка


Mental Illness, Gun Violence, and Gun Policy

Scholars say that, overall, gun violence can be reduced by instituting a risk-based approach to firearms possession and purchases.

by Stuart Wolpert | UCLA Newsroom | June 12, 2014

Recent mass killings in Isla Vista, California, and elsewhere have again raised concern among lawmakers and the media about the possible connection between mental illness and gun violence. A new study sets the record straight and recommends an evidence-based approach to limiting firearms fatalities.

A group of international scholars, including co-author Vickie Mays of UCLA, analyzed dozens of epidemiological studies on gun violence and mental illness and compared the results to media-fueled public perceptions about the dangerousness of mentally ill individuals.

The researchers found that mass murderers with mental health problems, while they receive a tremendous amount of media attention, are not typical of those who commit violent crimes, and the vast majority of those with serious mental illness do not engage in violent acts.

Still, the study authors stress, gun violence can be reduced by instituting policies at the federal and state level that prohibit firearms possession among individuals who display clear risk factors for violence.

The new research is published online in the journal Annals of Epidemiology and will be published in an upcoming print edition.

“We need more evidence-based policies to effectively prevent gun violence,” said Mays, a professor of psychology and health services who directs the BRITE Center for Science, Research, and Policy in the UCLA College. “We also need to expand mental health services and improve access to treatment — some people are slipping through the cracks. But mental illness is not the main cause of violence in society. Policies should focus more on limiting access to firearms for people with behavioral risk factors for violence during specific times when there is evidence that risk is elevated.”

An evidence-based approach to gun control

A history of violent behavior, especially with criminal justice involvement, and other behavioral indicators of risk are much stronger predictors of future gun violence than having a serious mental health diagnosis, the researchers say, echoing the findings of the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, a group of national experts on gun-violence prevention and mental illness that released a set of federal and state policy recommendations in December 2013.

Such risk indicators include being subject to a temporary domestic violence restraining order, having been convicted of a violent misdemeanor, having two or more driving-under-the-influence convictions in a five-year period, and having two or more controlled-substance convictions in five years.

The researchers’ analysis supports additional recommendations by the consortium, including the development of state mechanisms allowing law enforcement officers to confiscate guns from individuals who pose an immediate threat to themselves or others, and to request a warrant for the removal of guns when the risk of harm is “credible,” if not immediate. In addition, the consortium suggests that family members and intimate partners be able to petition the court to temporarily authorize gun removal and prohibit gun purchases by individuals who pose a credible risk of harm to themselves or others.

On the federal level, the researchers’ findings support the consortium’s suggestion that the government clarify and refine policies dealing with gun disqualification for individuals who have been involuntary committed for mental health reasons, and state laws should be strengthened to prohibit gun purchases or possession following a short-term involuntary hospitalization. The consortium also recommended a clinically informed judicial process for restoring gun ownership rights following their removal based on evidence of risk of harm.

Those with mental illness far more likely to harm themselves

While improving mental health care in the U.S. is a critical goal, the researchers say, it is important to understand that improving such care will not solve the problem of gun violence in America.

“We do need better mental health care in America. An estimated 3.5 million people with serious mental illnesses are going without treatment every year,” said Jeffrey W. Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine and lead author of the study. “But even if schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression were cured, our society’s problem of violence would diminish by only about 4 percent. A person with serious mental illness is far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a perpetrator.”

Mental health disorders are much more strongly linked to self-harm or suicide than to violence against others. A very small proportion of people with serious mental illness pose a threat to others, the researchers stress, and gun violence and mental illness intersect only on their margins, they said.

Approximately six of every 10 gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, which points to failures in both the mental health care system and firearms regulation, according to the authors.

“The public mental health system in most states is woefully inadequate — fragmented, overburdened and underfunded,” Swanson said. “It shouldn’t be harder for a person in a suicidal mental health crisis to get treatment than to get a handgun.”

The researchers also note that accurately predicting who will commit mass killings is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Citing a 2012 review of 73 studies on the accuracy of psychiatrists’ predictions of violent behavior in their patients, they said that prospective risk-assessment by mental health professionals is only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin.

Some states already authorize law enforcement agents to temporarily remove guns from homes in the case of domestic violence, say the researchers, who urge Congress and the states to take sensible steps to reduce gun violence.

“The right to bear arms is not unlimited and must be balanced with public safety concerns,” said Mays. “Our project was about using data to inform policies that will be most effective in reducing firearm-related injury and mortality, while respecting the rights of lawful gun owners.

“We’re asking, can we step back and use the best data to help rein this problem in?”

“In the current environment, where guns have become a radioactive political symbol, one can only hope that a risk-based approach to limiting firearms would emerge as at least one square inch of common real estate between those who are most concerned with the individual right to bear arms and those inclined toward greater regulation of guns in the public interest,” Swanson said. “We desperately need a place to start.”

Mays initially organized the team for this study as part of the American College of Epidemiology’s policy case study series.

Co-authors of the research are E. Elizabeth McGinty, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Seena Fazel, a psychiatrist at England’s University of Oxford.

Swanson’s research was supported by the National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Mental Health (grant K02-MH67864); the National Science Foundation (grant SES-1060949); the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s program on Public Health Law Research, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; and the Elizabeth K. Dollard Trust. Mays’ research was supported by the National Institute of Health’s National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities (MD006923). Fazel received funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant 095806).

Free Article Access

The Annals of Epidemiology article mentioned above is available to read and download for FREE at the link below



Publications

publications

Issue Areas

COVID-19
[Return to top]
Discrimination
[Return to top]
Ethics
[Return to top]
Health and Health Disparities
[Return to top]
HIV/AIDS
[Return to top]
Mental Health, Relationships and Emotional Well-Being
[Return to top]
Research Methodology
[Return to top]
Substance Abuse
[Return to top]
Violence and Gun Policy
[Return to top]
Workforce Diversity/Training
[Return to top]


Health Reform

As part of its guiding mission, the BRITE Center and its researchers and partners ensure that the voices of diverse communities, with an emphasis on California’s communities, play a key role in driving solutions to health disparities through health reform.

Research continues to play a role in shaping policies by assessing the health status of different populations and communities, as well as exploring the factors that affect health — from access to quality and affordable care to the health effects of chronic discrimination. The center’s research on race-based discrimination is leading the way in providing evidence-based data to help change policies that are currently discriminating against certain populations and creating negative health outcomes. In addition, many populations have historically been either left out of data collection or are underrepresented in large surveys. For more than a decade, BRITE Center researchers have designed surveys and outreach projects to capture these populations and broaden the reach of research in general.

As part of the center’s work in health reform, Director Dr. Vickie Mays has consulted with the United States Department of Health and Human Services on its national strategy for reducing HIV/AIDS among racial and ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and women. Additionally, as part of her work with the Institute of Medicine, Dr. Mays has helped to define why a social-determinants framework is vital to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2020 initiative.

Recent Health Reform Legislation

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was signed into law in 2010 provides a number of policy changes and opportunities to address health disparities. Among other actions, the new law emphasizes and expands prevention; extends the application of existing federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination; strengthens federal data collection on race, ethnicity, and other characteristics; creates the Health Professional Opportunity Grants program to assist needy families; and launches the Community Transformation Grants as part of the newly established Prevention and Public Health Fund. As a longtime leader in health disparities research, BRITE Center data and researchers will continue to play an important role in the law’s implementation.

Read more about the Affordable Care Act and the HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

Related Links

• Leading Health Indicators for Healthy People 2020 – Letter Report (Institute of Medicine)
• The Effects of Unequal Access to Health Insurance for Same-Sex Couples in California. (pdf) (Health Affairs)
• The Changing Landscape for the Elimination of Racial/Ethnic Health Status Disparities. (pdf) (Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved)
• Health Coverage Gaps Among Low-Income Citizen and Non-Citizen Wage Earners. (pdf) (Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health)
• Health Care for African American and Hispanic women: Report on Perceived Health Status, Access to Care, and Utilization Patterns (pdf) (Minority health in America: Findings and policy implications from the Commonwealth Fund Minority Health Survey)



Director’s YouTube Highlights

Issue Areas

Discrimination

  • What is kindness?
    UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture · October 26, 2020

Panel Discussion at “Ten Questions: Reckoning”, part of UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture’s “Ten Questions” series which invites the public to join UCLA students in the virtual classroom to engage in vibrant conversation alongside leading faculty and distinguished alumni from across the university.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE 10 QUESTIONS SERIES → https://arts.ucla.edu/10questions

  • CRT Perspectives on Race and Hurricane Katrina
    UCLA School of Law Critical Race Studies Program · August 31, 2007

Panel Discussion at Inaugural UCLA Critical Race Studies Symposium
“Critical Race Theory: Mapping the Movement Across Disciplines “

Moderator:
Dr. Vickie Mays – Professor of Psychology and Health Services, UCLA

Speakers:
Dr. Oscar H. Gandy – Professor Emeritus, Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania
Cheryl l. Harris – Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Justice John J. Francis Scholar, Rutgers School of Law

VIEW OTHER CRS PRESENTATIONS HERE

[Return to top]

Health and Health Disparities

  • mHealth and Vulnerable Populations
    NIH and the Center of Excellence for Mobile Sensor Data-to-Knowledge · August 2, 2019

Forum at the 2019 mHealth Training Institute presented by the NIH and the Center of Excellence for Mobile Sensor Data-to-Knowledge

VIEW ALL mHEALTH TRAINING INSTITUTE PRESENTATIONS HERE

  • Race, Racism, and Health Consequences
    RWJF Center for Health Policy at University of New Mexico · March 26, 2014

Lecture for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy Lecture Series “Plural Perspectives on Health and Health Policy”

[Return to top]

Mental Health, Relationships and Emotional Well-Being

  • Violence and Mental Health: Opportunities for Prevention and Early Detection
    NASEM Health and Medicine Division · February 27, 2014

Forum Discusssion at the National Academies of Science, Engineering, & Medicine’s Workshop “Violence and Mental Health”

Presenter: Dr Vickie Mays

Question and Answer Session with Dr Vickie Mays

VIEW ENTIRE VIOLENCE & MENTAL HEALTH FORUM HERE

[Return to top]