You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Race, structural racism and racial disparities in firearm homicide victimisation
  1. Kelsey M Conrick1,2,
  2. Avanti Adhia2,3,
  3. Alice Ellyson2,4,
  4. Miriam Joan Haviland2,
  5. Vivian H Lyons5,
  6. Brianna Mills2,6,
  7. Ali Rowhani-Rahbar6
  1. 1 School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  2. 2 Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  3. 3 Department of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  4. 4 Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
  5. 5 Social Development Research Group, School of Social Work, Department of Psychiatry, University of Washington Allies in Healthier Systems for Health & Abundance in Youth, Seattle, Washington, USA
  6. 6 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  1. Correspondence to Kelsey M Conrick, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; kmc621{at}uw.edu

Abstract

Objectives To identify an approach in measuring the association between structural racism and racial disparities in firearm homicide victimisation focusing on racism, rather than race.

Methods We examined associations of six measures of structural racism (Black/white disparity ratios in poverty, education, labour force participation, rental housing, single-parent households and index crime arrests) with state-level Black-white disparities in US age-adjusted firearm homicide victimisation rates 2010–2019. We regressed firearm homicide victimisation disparities on four specifications of independent variables: (1) absolute measure only; (2) absolute measure and per cent Black; (3) absolute measure and Black-white disparity ratio and (4) absolute measure, per cent Black and disparity ratio.

Results For all six measures of structural racism the optimal specification included the absolute measure and Black-white disparity ratio and did not include per cent Black. Coefficients for the Black-white disparity were statistically significant, while per cent Black was not.

Conclusions In the presence of structural racism measures, the inclusion of per cent Black did not contribute to the explanation of firearm homicide disparities in this study. Findings provide empiric evidence for the preferred use of structural racism measures instead of race.

  • firearm
  • socioeconomic status
  • income inequaility
  • health disparities

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data relevant to the study are included in the article. All data used for this study are available in a public, open access repository. The compiled data used for this study are available in online supplemental files 3 and 4; the corresponding data dictionary is available in online supplemental file 5.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2022-044788

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data relevant to the study are included in the article. All data used for this study are available in a public, open access repository. The compiled data used for this study are available in online supplemental files 3 and 4; the corresponding data dictionary is available in online supplemental file 5.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @VivianHLyons

    • Contributors KMC and AR-R conceptualised and designed the study. KMC collected and analysed all data. All authors contributed to interpretation of findings. KMC led drafting of the manuscrpt, and all authors contributed to critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for publication and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. KMC and AR-R are the guarantors of the work, accept full responsibility for the work, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.