• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Hospitalizations and healthcare costs associated with serious,non-lethal firearm-related violence and injuries in the United States,1998–2011

    2015-11-02 02:03:58JasonSalemiVikasJindalRoneWilsonMulubrhanMogosMuktarAliyuHamisuSalihu
    Family Medicine and Community Health 2015年2期

    Jason L. Salemi, Vikas Jindal, Roneé E. Wilson, Mulubrhan F. Mogos, Muktar H. Aliyu, Hamisu M. Salihu

    Hospitalizations and healthcare costs associated with serious,non-lethal firearm-related violence and injuries in the United States,1998–2011

    Jason L. Salemi1, Vikas Jindal2, Roneé E. Wilson3, Mulubrhan F. Mogos4, Muktar H. Aliyu5, Hamisu M. Salihu1

    Objective:To describe the prevalence, trends, correlates, and short-term outcomes of inpatient hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries (FRIs) in the United States between 1998 and 2011.

    Methods:We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of inpatient hospitalizations using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. In addition to generating national prevalence estimates, we used survey logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between FRIs and patient/hospital-level characteristics. Temporal trends were estimated and characterized using joinpoint regression.

    Results:There were 10.5 FRIs (95% CI: 9.2–11.8) per 10,000 non-maternal/neonatal inpatient hospitalizations, with assault accounting for 60.1% of FRIs, followed by unintentional/ accidental(23.0%) and intentional/self-inflicted FRIs (8.2%). The highest odds of FRIs, particularly FRIs associated with an assault, was observed among patients 18–24 years of age, patients 14–17 years of age, patients with no insurance/self-pay, and non-Hispanic blacks. The mean inpatient length of stay for FRIs was 6.9 days; however, 4.7% of patients remained in the hospital over 24 days and 1 in 12 patients (8.2%) died before discharge. The mean cost of an inpatient hospitalization for a FRI was $22,149, which was estimated to be $679 million annually; approximately two-thirds of the annual cost (64.7%) was for assault ($439 million).

    Conclusion:FRIs are a preventable public health issue which disproportionately impacts younger generations, while imposing significant economic and societal burdens, even in the absence of fatalities. Prevention of FRIs should be considered a priority in this era of healthcare cost containment.

    Assault; cost; gunshot; firearms; hospitalization; intentional injury

    Introduction

    Firearm-related injuries (FRIs) have long been a major public health concern. In 2013 alone,over 32,000 people in the United States (US)died as a result of a FRI (nearly 4 people every minute), including 193 children less than 15 years of age [1]. Despite the overwhelming attention on immediately fatal FRIs,there have been 43 non-fatal FRIs for every fatality since 2000 [2]. Most non-fatal FRIsresult in lengthy hospital stays, a diminished quality of life for the surviving victim, and considerable economic costs to society [3–5].

    Although the frequency of FRIs in the US decreased precipitously between 1990 and 1999, the rate has plateaued during the 2000s [6]. There is little evidence, however, regarding a variation in FRI trends, short-term outcomes, or annual medical care expenditures over the past decade across sociodemographic and geographic subgroups, or in the underlying reasons for FRIs (e.g., assault, accident, or self-inflicted).Therefore, the primary aims of this study were as follows: (1)describe the frequency, prevalence, and temporal trends of inpatient hospitalizations for FRIs in the US between 1998 and 2011; (2) investigate individual- and hospital-level sociodemographic and clinical characteristics that are associated with FRIs and FRI subtypes; and (3) estimate indices of healthcare utilization, the costs of inpatient care, and in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for a FRI.

    Methods

    Study design and data source

    We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of inpatient hospitalizations in the US between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2011 using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). The NIS is part of a collection of healthcare databases created under the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), and it currently constitutes the largest all payer, publicly-available inpatient database in the US [7]. The NIS strati fies all non-federal community hospitals from participating states into groups according to the following five characteristics: geographic region of the US; urban location;rural location; number of beds; and type of ownership. Then,within each stratum, a 20% sample of hospitals is drawn using systematic random sampling to ensure unbiased geographic representation [7]. All inpatient hospitalization records from selected hospitals are included in the NIS, and HCUP provides discharge-level sampling weights so that national frequency and prevalence estimates take into account the two-stage cluster sampling design. The NIS contains approximately 7 million inpatient hospitalizations each year (36 million when weighted), and has grown from 22 participating states in 1998 to 46 in 2011.

    Study population

    In this study, we were interested in identifying inpatient hospitalizations associated with FRIs. Our definition of a firearm in this study included handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles,military firearms, and other/unspecified firearms; however,we did not consider air guns, paintball guns, or explosive devices as firearms. A hospitalization was considered to have occurred as a result of a FRI and was subsequently classified according to the manner/intent of the injury using the following International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision,Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) E-codes: E965.0-E965.4,E979.4 (assault); E922.0-E922.3, E922.8, E922.9 (unintentional); E955.0-E955.4 (intentional/self-inflicted); E970 (legal intervention); and E985.0-E985.4 (other or unknown manner/intent). For the small proportion of records that included codes for more than one manner/intent category (0.1%), the final classification was hierarchical, so that groups were mutually exclusive and did not have dual membership. Classification ordering was as follows: assault; accident; self-inflicted; and legal intervention. For example, if a discharge record had codes for both assault and legal intervention, it would be classified as assault. Discharge records without at least one of these codes were considered as a non-FRI hospitalization. We excluded discharge records, regardless of the presence of a FRI, in which the primary reason for admission was associated with pregnancy, childbirth, or the neonatal period. These were identified using major diagnostic categories 14 (“pregnancy, childbirth,and the puerperium”) and 15 (“newborns and other neonates with conditions originating during the perinatal period”), and using an HCUP-created variable that indicated neonatal and/or maternal diagnoses and procedures. The reason for the exclusion of maternal and neonatal discharge records was that these discharges represented nearly one-fourth (23.5%) of all inpatient discharges in the US between 1998 and 2011, but were much less likely to be at risk for a FRI (the discharges make up only 0.38% of all FRIs in the NIS). Therefore, we felt prevalence estimates would be more accurate by considering the rate of FRIs among non-maternal/neonatal inpatient discharges.

    Individual- and hospital-level covariates

    We used ICD-9-CM codes to ascertain other clinical details for each FRI hospitalization, including the type of firearm involved (e.g., handgun, shotgun, hunting rifle, or military firearm), the geographic location of the injury (home/ residential area vs. away from home), and the site of the injury (head,trunk, upper extremity, lower extremity, multiple sites, or unknown). We documented whether or not the patient had a mental illness, including adjustment, anxiety, disruptive behavior, impulse control, mood, personality, and psychotic disorders, or use/abuse of alcohol or illicit substances. For each discharge record, the NIS contains individual-level sociodemographic characteristics. The patient age in years was categorized as follows: <14; 14–17; 18–24; 25–34; 35–44;45–54; 55–64; and ≥65. Self-reported race/ethnicity was first stratified on ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic [NH]), and the NH group was further subdivided by race (white, black,or other). The primary payer was classified into government(Medicare/Medicaid), private (commercial carriers, and private HMOs and PPOs), and other, including self-pay and no charge. Using the patient’s residential zip code, HCUP provided quartiles of estimated median household incomes. We also considered several characteristics of the treating hospital, including US census region (northeast, mid west, south, or west), location (urban or rural), bed size (small, medium, or large), and teaching status (teaching or non-teaching).

    Outcomes

    We examined several short-term outcomes associated with hospitalization for a FRI. Length of stay (LOS) was used as a proxy for the level of healthcare utilization, and for the severity of complications resulting from the FRI. In addition to the mean LOS, we also considered the proportion of FRIs requiring a prolonged hospitalization, which was defined as a LOS≥95th percentile among all FRIs (>24 days in our sample).The NIS does not capture events beyond the current hospitalization; therefore, we were only able to assess in-hospital mortality or death before discharge. The cost of inpatient care associated with FRIs was estimated using the total hospital charges reported for the patient’s hospitalization. Unadjusted charges can be a misleading indicator because the markup from the cost for the hospital to provide services to what is ultimately charged varies significantly across hospitals, among different departments within the same hospital, and over time[8, 9]. To obtain a more accurate estimate of actual cost, we adjusted total charges as follows: (1) multiplied the reported charges by a year- and hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratio(CCR) obtained from HCUP; and (2) multiplied the amount from step 1 by a HCUP-generated “adjustment factor” (AF),which attempts to account for interdepartmental variations in markup within each hospital [10, 11]. The final formula estimating the direct cost of inpatient care for each hospitalization for FRI is presented below by the following equation:

    total cost = total charges × year- and hospital-specific CCR × AF

    Statistical analysis

    We estimated the frequency and rate of inpatient hospitalizations for FRIs overall, for FRI subtypes, and by individual- and hospital-level characteristics. All discharges were weighted to account for the complex sampling design of the NIS and so that national estimates can be generated[7]. Temporal trends were estimated and characterized using joinpoint regression (JPR). JPR is useful in identifying changes in the temporal trends of events over time [12]. First,the JPR model fits annual rate data to a straight line (one with no “joinpoints”) that assumes a single trend can best characterize rates over the entire study period [13]. Then, a joinpoint is added to the model and a Monte Carlo permutation test is used to determine whether or not the joinpoint offers a statistically significant improvement to the model; if so,the joinpoint is incorporated. The process is repeated until a best fitting model, with an optimal number of joinpoints,is specified. In the final model, each joinpoint corresponds to a statistically significant change (increase or decrease) in the temporal trend, and an annual percent change (APC) is calculated to describe how the rate changes within that time interval. JPR also estimates the average APC (AAPC), which characterizes the trend over the entire study period, even when there are significant changes in the trend over time[13]. Because the NIS sampling design changed between 1998 and 2011, we incorporated HCUP-supplied NIS-trends files for our trend analyses so that trend weights and data elements were defined consistently over time [14].

    Survey logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios(ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that represent the association between FRI and each patient- or hospital-level characteristic. We constructed a crude (unadjusted) model for each factor and two multivariable models. Selection of covariates for inclusion into each multivariable model was based on a review of the literature, data availability, and empirical bivariate analyses. The first multivariable model included all patient factors, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, primary payer, alcohol or substance use/abuse,and mental illness. The second multivariable model added timing of the admission and hospital region, location, and teaching status to the first model. In this paper, we present the results of the crude and second (best- fitting) multivariable model.

    The mean LOS, in-hospital mortality rate, and costs associated with hospitalization for a FRI were calculated, followed by FRI and patient subgroup analyses. Our national prevalence and cost estimates were used to determine the total annual expenditures on inpatient care in the US caused by FRIs. To account for in flation, all cost estimates were adjusted to 2011 US dollars using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index [15]. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and the JPR program (version 4.1.1.3) [12]. We assumed a 5% type I error rate for all hypothesis tests (two-sided). Because of the de-identified nature of NIS data, this study was classified as exempt by the Baylor College of Medicine and the University of South Florida Institutional Review Boards.

    Results

    Between 1998 and 2011 there were an estimated 429,036 discharge records with a diagnosed FRI (an average of 30,645 per year) in the US, which corresponds to a rate of 10.5 FRIs(95% CI: 9.2–11.8) per 10,000 non-maternal/neonatal inpatient hospitalizations (Table 1). The most common documented manner/intent associated with FRIs was assault (60.1%),followed by unintentional/accidental (23.0%), intentional/self-inflicted (8.2%), and legal intervention (1.6%). Greater than 62% of discharge records were missing the specific type of firearm responsible for the injury; however, among the discharge records with documentation, handguns were implicated in over 76% of FRIs, with shotguns and hunting ri fles responsible for 17.7% and 5.4%, respectively. Although the overall rate of inpatient hospitalizations caused by FRIs decreased from 13.0 per 10,000 in 1998 to 9.5 per 10,000 in 2011, there was considerable annual fluctuation and no statistically significant temporal trend during the study period (Fig. 1, APC:–0.5; 95% CI: –2.3–1.4).

    The associations between patient- and hospital-level characteristics and FRIs are presented in Table 1, in addition to subgroup-specific frequencies, rates, and trends. The highest rates of FRIs (per 10,000 hospitalizations) were observed among patients 18–24 years of age (117.6), patients 14–17 years of age(69.4), patients with no insurance/self-pay (52.1), NH-blacks(36.2), and patients with a substance abuse disorder (27.1).Except for children under 14 years of age, we observed a trend of decreasing odds of hospitalization for FRIs with increasing age (Ptrend<0.001). Males were nearly 8 times more likely than females to have a FRI hospitalization (95% CI: 7.5–8.1),and compared to NH whites, NH blacks and Hispanics had 3.7 (95% CI: 3.4–4.1) and 1.6 (95%: 1.4–1.9) higher odds of hospitalization for a FRI. There was a statistically significant trend of higher odds of FRIs with lower levels of household income (Ptrend<0.001); specifically, patients in the lowest versus highest quartile of income were 2.8 times more likely to be hospitalized for a FRI (95% CI: 2.5–3.1). There was considerable geographic variation, even after adjusting for population characteristics, with the western region of the US having the highest odds of hospitalization caused by a FRI. Teaching hospitals (OR=2.7; 95% CI: 2.3–3.3) and hospitals in urban areas (OR=1.7; 95% CI: 1.5–2.0) were more likely to have a FRI hospitalization, and FRIs were twice as common on the weekend compared to the weekday. Several subgroups, including the 18–24 year age group, patients with private insurance,patients residing in rural areas, and patients in the 2nd quartile of household income experienced statistically significant decreases in the rate of FRI hospitalizations during the study period, with APCs ranging from –1.6 to –3.9 (Table 1). All other subgroups experienced no significant rate changes over time; there were no increasing trends among any subgroup.

    Table 2 describes the distribution of inpatient hospitalizations for FRIs by the reported manner or intent of injury and the geographic location in which the injury occurred. Assault was the intent of injury in 6 of every 10 FRI hospitalizations overall, and was more likely the reason for the FRIs among Hispanics (72.8%), NH blacks (70.8%), patients with lowerhousehold incomes, patients without private insurance, and patients 14–34 years of age. Compared with the overall proportion of FRIs that were accidental (23.0%), unintentional FRIs were particularly common among children under 14 years of age (49.6%), NH whites (34.0%), and patients residing in rural settings (47.5%). The proportion of FRIs that were self-inflicted increased markedly with increasing age (from 2.7%in the <14 year age group to 41.8% in the ≥65 year age group)and increasing income (5.9%–13.9%), and was particularly high among NH whites (23.1% compared to NH blacks andHispanics [1.5% and 3.4%, respectively]). Although the location of the injury was only listed in 1 of every 5 FRI hospitalizations, there was a near-even split among documented cases.Injuries were more likely to occur at home or in residential areas among young and old age extremes, females, NH whites,patients with higher household incomes, and patients residing in rural areas (Table 2).

    Table 1. Frequency, prevalence, and temporal trends of inpatient hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries in the United States, by individual and hospital-level characteristics, Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 1998–2011.

    Table 1. (continued)

    Fig. 1. Trends in inpatient hospitalizations for major types of firearm-related injuries in the United States, Nationwide Inpatient Sample,1998–2011.

    Table 2. Distribution of inpatient hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries in the United States*, by individual and hospital-level characteristics and by the manner/intent and geographic location of injury, Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 1998–2011.

    Table 2. (continued)

    Hospital LOS, in-hospital mortality, and the direct costs of inpatient care that were associated with FRI hospitalizations are presented in Table 3. Overall, the mean inpatient LOS for FRIs was 6.9 days; however, 4.7% of patients remained in the hospital over 24 days and approximately 1 in 12 patients(8.2%) died before discharge. The mean cost of medical services provided during an inpatient hospitalization for a FRI was $22,149, which was estimated at more than $7.5 billion between 2001 and 2011 or $679 million annually. FRIs resulting from assault comprised 64.7% of annual expenditures on FRIs ($439 million), followed by 17.3% for unintentional injuries ($117 million), and 9.3% for intentional/self-inflicted FRIs ($63 million). The LOS and in-hospital mortality rates were highest for intentional/self-inflicted FRIs, of which 1 in 3 patients died before discharge, and for FRIs in which a head wound occurred. Except for the youngest age group,the mortality rate increased with increasing age (from 6.9%among patients 14–17 years of age to 30% in patients ≥65 years of age).

    Discussion

    In the current study we investigated the 14-year frequency,prevalence, trends, and healthcare costs associated with inpatient hospitalizations for various types of FRIs in the US. One of our key findings was that despite annual fluctuation, the consistent declining trends in FRIs observed in the 1990s that happened to accompany firearms regulations legislation [16,17] did not continue in the 2000s. In fact, we did not observe any significant changes in the rate of inpatient hospitalization for any FRI subtype (assault, accidental, or intentional/self-inflicted) among most socioeconomic subgroups, except an approximate 2% annual decline within the 18–24 year age group and patients with private insurance, and a 4% annual decline in rural areas. A recent 2000–2010 study examining hospitalizations from the National Hospital Discharge Survey[18] also reported non-significant changes in the rate of hospitalizations among FRIs because of assault or accident; however, the authors did report a small reduction in the rate of self-inflicted injuries. Recently, Agarwal [19] observed that the subtle annual variations in hospitalizations for FRI mirrored changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, suggesting that stock market volatility may reflect broader economic insecurities that trigger violence and an increase in FRIs.

    Table 3. Hospital length of stay, costs of inpatient care, and in-hospital mortality associated with firearm-related injuries in the United States by injury, patient, and hospital-level characteristics, Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 1998–2011.

    Table 3. (continued)

    The burden of firearm-related violence continues to disproportionately affect the young, poor, and minority males in urban settings. Sixty percent of all hospitalizations for FRIs were because of assaults; however, that percentage increased to over 70% for NH blacks and Hispanics overall,and was well above 80% for NH black and Hispanic males under 25 years of age in the lowest quartile of household incomes. Although the prevalence estimates by race/ethnicity must be interpreted with caution because of reporting in the NIS (25% of discharges have missing race/ethnicity),these gender, race/ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in fatal and non-fatal assaults with a firearm have been echoed consistently in government reports and research studies[2, 6, 19–23]. Conversely, the proportion of FRIs that were accidental or the result of an attempted suicide were more common among NH whites and patients in higher socioeconomic strata, and the rate of self-inflicted injuries increased substantially with increasing age, constituting over 40% of all hospitalizations for FRIs among patients 65 years of age or older.

    The short-term outcomes associated with FRIs were similar to the short-term outcomes reported in other studies [18,19]. The mean LOS was 7 days, with a slight increase over time, and nearly 5% of patients were hospitalized a month or longer. Even for FRIs that were not immediately fatal, hospitalized patients still experienced over an 8% chance of death before discharge, a mortality rate that did not change signifi-cantly over time. As expected, self-inflicted and head injuries had the highest risk of death. The economic cost of FRIs is substantial; specifically, FRIs cost hospitals over $679 million annually on inpatient care for the index FRI hospitalization alone. Over the entire study period, the cost of FRIs equates to over $9 billion, an amount which does not include direct medical costs for physicians, indirect costs caused by lost productivity, the costs borne by families and society as a whole,or the costs for victims of FRIs who are never hospitalized.Furthermore, because the NIS does not link hospitalizations longitudinally, our estimates are extremely conservative not only for costs, but also for the overall morbidity and mortality attributable to FRIs [3–5].

    Despite the strength of using of a large, nationally-representative dataset compiled and used frequently for health services research, the findings from the current and other studies on FRIs that leverage HCUP data must be interpreted within the context of the following limitations. First,despite obvious visual cues for diagnosing a FRI, the NIS relies exclusively on ICD-9-CM codes for identifying medical conditions and procedures. These codes have suboptimal sensitivity and accuracy because of errors both in translation of information from the medical record into an appropriate code and in entry of codes into the hospital information management system. Second, the NIS databases fail to capture FRIs that are immediately lethal, minor FRIs that are treated in physician’s of fices, walk-in clinics, and emergency departments without the need for hospitalization, and victims of FRIs who do not seek medical care, which may collectively comprise more than 80% of all FRIs. Therefore, the national frequency, prevalence, and trends we report reflect a particular subset of serious FRIs that result in inpatient hospitalization. Third, although we controlled for mental illness and substance abuse, we did not analyze the independent effects of these conditions on hospitalizations for FRIs. Our denominator consisted of other inpatient hospitalizations and not a population estimate, and considering the frequency of hospitalizations for people with clinically-diagnosed addictions and mental illnesses, we reasoned that comparing the relative odds of FRIs in this particular subgroup would misrepresent the desired odds of being involved in a FRI. Lastly, the NIS lacks circumstantial information regarding the victim and perpetrator, the location of the injury, and the specific firearm(s) used, particularly for accidental or assault-driven FRIs. Despite these limitations in addressing the entire scope of the problem, our analyses highlight the enormous financial cost of FRIs in the US. There are complex socio-historical, cultural, and political processes that underlie FRIs and which permeate individual, family, and community-level systems in the US [24, 25]. Although trends in FRIs remain stable over the period covered by this study, the burden of firearm-related violence continues to be disproportionately borne by young, poor, and minority males in urban settings.Comprehensive public health and legal measures to curtail FRIs should incorporate targeted measures directed to this demographic group.

    conflict of interest

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Funding

    This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-pro fit sectors.

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics. Multiple Cause of Death 1999-2013 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2015. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2013, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. [January 12, 2015]. Available from: http://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10.html.

    2. Planty M, Truman JL. Special Report: Firearm Violence,1993-2011. 2013, U.S. Department of Justice, Of fice of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC.

    3. Lee J, Quraishi SA, Bhatnagar S, Zafonte RD, Masiakos PT. The economic cost of firearm-related injuries in the United States from 2006 to 2010. Surgery 2014;155(5):894–8.

    4. Martin MJ, Hunt TK, Hulley SB. The cost of hospitalization for firearm injuries. J Am Med Assoc 1988;260(20):3048–50.

    5. Max W, Rice DP. Shooting in the dark: estimating the cost of firearm injuries. Health Aff (Millwood) 1993;12(4):171–85.

    6 Cuellar AE, Stranges E, Stocks C. Hospital Visits in the U.S. for Firearm-Related Injuries, 2009: Statistical Brief #136, in Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs.2006: Rockville (MD).

    7. Health Care Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Introduction to the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2011. Rockville,MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.

    8. Finkler SA. The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med 1982;96(1):102–9.

    9. Salemi JL, Comins MM, Chandler K, Mogos MF, Salihu HM.A practical approach for calculating reliable cost estimates from observational data: application to cost analyses in maternal and child health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013;11(4):343–57.

    10. Song X, Friedman B. Calculate Cost Adjustment Factors by APR-DRG and CCS Using Selected States with Detailed Charges. HCUP Methods Series Report # 2008-04. Online October 8, 2008. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    11. Sun Y, Friedman B. Tools for more accurate inpatient cost estimates with HCUP databases, 2009. Errata added October 25,2012. 2012. HCUP Methods Series Report # 2011-04. ONLINE October 29, 2012. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    12. National Cancer Institute. Joinpoint Regression Program, Version 4.1.1.3 Statistical Methodology and Applications Branch and Data Modeling Branch, Surveillance Research Program[January 4, 2015]. Available from: http://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint/.

    13. Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med 2000;19(3):335–51.

    14. Houchens RL, Elixhauser A. Using the HCUP nationwide inpatient sample to estimate trends (updated for 1988–2004). HCUP methods series Report # 2006-05 online. Available from: www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/2006_05_NISTrendsReport_1988-2004.pdf.

    15. United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics,Consumer Price Index: all urban consumers–(CPI-U). 2012.

    16. Ludwig J, Cook PJ. Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady handgun violence prevention act.J Am Med Assoc 2000;284(5):585–91.

    17. Safavi A, Rhee P, Pandit V, Kulvatunyou N, Tang A, Aziz H, et al.Children are safer in states with strict firearm laws: a National Inpatient Sample study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014;76(1):146–50;discussion 150–1.

    18. Kalesan B, French C, Fagan JA, Fowler DL, Galea S. Firearmrelated hospitalizations and in-hospital mortality in the United States, 2000-2010. Am J Epidemiol 2014;179(3):303–12.

    19. Agarwal S. Trends and burden of firearm-related hospitalizations in the United States Across 2001-2011. Am J Med 2015;128(5):484–92.

    20. Karch DL, Logan J, McDaniel D, Parks S, Patel N. Surveillance for violent deaths – National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 states, 2009. MMWR Surveill Summ 2012;61(6):1–43.

    21. Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Arias E. Mortality in the United States, 2013. NCHS Data Brief 2014;(178):1–8.

    22. Leventhal JM, Gaither JR, Sege R. Hospitalizations due to firearm injuries in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2014;133(2):219–25.

    23. Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD. Deaths: final data for 2010.Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013;61(4):1–117.

    24. Altheimer I, Boswell M. Reassessing the association between gun availability and homicide at the cross-national level. Am J Crim Just 2012;37:682–704.

    25. Makarios MD, Pratt TC. The effectiveness of policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence. Crime Delinquency 2012;58(2):222–44.

    1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston,Texas, USA

    2. Department of Occupational Health, Kaiser Permanente,Lancaster, California, USA

    3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida,USA

    4. Department of Community Health Systems, School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

    5. Vanderbilt Institute for Global Health, Vanderbilt University,Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Jason L. Salemi, PhD, MPH

    Department of Family and Community Medicine

    3701 Kirby Drive, Suite 600,Houston, TX 77098, USA

    Tel.: +713-798-4698

    E-mail: Jason.Salemi@bcm.edu

    25 March 2015;

    15 April 2015

    精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 中文资源天堂在线| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 色5月婷婷丁香| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 色播亚洲综合网| 99热全是精品| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 波多野结衣高清作品| 69av精品久久久久久| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| av在线蜜桃| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 国产视频内射| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产 一区精品| av在线天堂中文字幕| 久久精品夜色国产| 久久久久久久久中文| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 老司机影院成人| 日本一本二区三区精品| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 俺也久久电影网| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 亚洲av熟女| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 色5月婷婷丁香| 午夜福利在线在线| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 三级毛片av免费| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 日本黄大片高清| 黑人高潮一二区| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 波多野结衣高清作品| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 嫩草影视91久久| 97在线视频观看| 亚洲国产色片| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 亚洲无线在线观看| 久久人人爽人人片av| 国产在线男女| .国产精品久久| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 大香蕉久久网| 国产精品一及| 简卡轻食公司| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 黄色配什么色好看| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 亚洲国产色片| 亚洲性久久影院| 成人三级黄色视频| 六月丁香七月| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 成年版毛片免费区| 美女黄网站色视频| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲av一区综合| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 色视频www国产| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| av黄色大香蕉| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 看片在线看免费视频| av天堂在线播放| 日本免费a在线| 99热这里只有精品一区| 在线天堂最新版资源| 十八禁网站免费在线| 国产美女午夜福利| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 99热网站在线观看| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 最好的美女福利视频网| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 亚洲不卡免费看| 在线天堂最新版资源| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 欧美日本视频| 精品一区二区免费观看| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 99热网站在线观看| 99热全是精品| 成年版毛片免费区| 免费高清视频大片| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 亚洲最大成人av| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| av在线天堂中文字幕| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 日韩强制内射视频| 直男gayav资源| 日本黄大片高清| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 免费观看在线日韩| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| av卡一久久| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 在线国产一区二区在线| 99热网站在线观看| 美女高潮的动态| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 97在线视频观看| 老司机福利观看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 露出奶头的视频| 色av中文字幕| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 我要搜黄色片| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 变态另类丝袜制服| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 一区福利在线观看| 韩国av在线不卡| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| a级毛片a级免费在线| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 嫩草影院精品99| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 成年版毛片免费区| 舔av片在线| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 日本一二三区视频观看| 97超碰精品成人国产| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 午夜福利在线观看吧| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| av免费在线看不卡| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| av免费在线看不卡| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 日本与韩国留学比较| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 免费观看人在逋| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 在线观看一区二区三区| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 小说图片视频综合网站| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 国产三级中文精品| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 在线播放无遮挡| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 老司机福利观看| 国产乱人视频| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 午夜福利在线在线| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 丝袜喷水一区| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产免费男女视频| 床上黄色一级片| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 色在线成人网| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 丰满的人妻完整版| 99热这里只有精品一区| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| av免费在线看不卡| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 国产成人a区在线观看| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 嫩草影视91久久| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 激情 狠狠 欧美| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 99久国产av精品| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 久99久视频精品免费| 欧美区成人在线视频| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 精品久久久久久久久av| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 免费高清视频大片| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 热99在线观看视频| 内地一区二区视频在线| 午夜a级毛片| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 久99久视频精品免费| 全区人妻精品视频| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 成年av动漫网址| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 综合色av麻豆| 97超碰精品成人国产| 九色成人免费人妻av| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 精品国产三级普通话版| 精品久久久久久成人av| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 成年av动漫网址| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 国产单亲对白刺激| 91av网一区二区| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 免费看a级黄色片| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 久久久成人免费电影| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 色在线成人网| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 黄片wwwwww| 美女高潮的动态| av在线观看视频网站免费| 久久精品夜色国产| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 一级毛片我不卡| 国产黄片美女视频| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 精品福利观看| 亚洲五月天丁香| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 欧美潮喷喷水| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 免费av观看视频| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 欧美潮喷喷水| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 精品久久久久久久久av| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 国产在线男女| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 特级一级黄色大片| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 一级黄色大片毛片| 成人无遮挡网站| 三级经典国产精品| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| av天堂中文字幕网| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 91久久精品电影网| 一级黄片播放器| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 免费看av在线观看网站| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 日本三级黄在线观看| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 亚洲不卡免费看| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产精品三级大全| 国产午夜精品论理片| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看 | 99久国产av精品国产电影| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 不卡一级毛片| 国产成人aa在线观看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 精品一区二区免费观看| 免费观看精品视频网站| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 欧美人与善性xxx| 欧美zozozo另类| 精品福利观看| 在现免费观看毛片| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 在线国产一区二区在线| 亚洲av熟女| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 在现免费观看毛片| av中文乱码字幕在线| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 国产高清激情床上av| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 少妇的逼好多水| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| av在线老鸭窝| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 免费av观看视频| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 免费看av在线观看网站| 免费av毛片视频| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 欧美bdsm另类| 天堂网av新在线| 久久久久久大精品| 色综合色国产| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 内地一区二区视频在线| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 美女内射精品一级片tv| ponron亚洲| 国产精品一二三区在线看| avwww免费| 男女那种视频在线观看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 午夜精品在线福利| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 色5月婷婷丁香| av卡一久久| 1000部很黄的大片| 久久草成人影院| 日韩欧美三级三区| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 1000部很黄的大片| 99久国产av精品| 99热只有精品国产| 国产午夜精品论理片| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 春色校园在线视频观看| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 亚洲第一电影网av| 综合色av麻豆| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 三级毛片av免费| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| a级毛片a级免费在线| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 在线免费十八禁| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 久久久精品大字幕| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 十八禁网站免费在线| 国产成人freesex在线 | 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 一本精品99久久精品77| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 久久久成人免费电影| 免费av观看视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 此物有八面人人有两片| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 亚洲精品色激情综合| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 成人三级黄色视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 床上黄色一级片| 精品福利观看| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 色吧在线观看| 内射极品少妇av片p| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 久久久久久久久中文| 日韩高清综合在线| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 天堂网av新在线| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 亚洲第一电影网av| 免费大片18禁| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 长腿黑丝高跟| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 91狼人影院| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 国产 一区精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 日本一本二区三区精品| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 亚洲无线在线观看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 全区人妻精品视频| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 亚洲无线在线观看| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看|