4.7 Review

The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review

Journal

AGE AND AGEING
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 151-160

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afm194

Keywords

elders; abuse; prevalence

Funding

  1. MRC [G0501866] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0501866] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: to perform a systematic review of studies measuring the prevalence of elder abuse or neglect, either reported by older people themselves, or family and professional caregivers or investigated using objective measures. Methods: we conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases up to October 2006, supplemented by a search of the references of all relevant articles. Validity of studies was graded by two authors independently using a standardised checklist. Results: forty-nine studies met our inclusion criteria, of which only seven used measures for which reliability and validity had been assessed. In the general population studies, 6% of older people reported significant abuse in the last month and 5.6% of couples reported physical violence in their relationship in the last year. In studies using valid instruments involving vulnerable elders, nearly a quarter reported significant levels of psychological abuse. Five per cent of family caregivers reported physical abuse towards care recipients with dementia in a year, and a third reported any significant abuse. Sixteen per cent of care home staff admitted significant psychological abuse. Rates of abuse recorded using objective measures (5%) or reported to home management or adult protective services (APS) (12%) were low. Conclusion: one in four vulnerable elders are at risk of abuse and only a small proportion of this is currently detected. Elders and family and professional caregivers are willing to report abuse and should be asked about it routinely. Valid, reliable measures and consensus on what constitutes an adequate standard for validity of abuse measures are needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available