Literature DB >> 17661961

Elder abuse: disparities between older people's disclosure of abuse, evident signs of abuse, and high risk of abuse.

Miri Cohen1, Sarah Halevy Levin, Roni Gagin, Gideon Friedman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare three types of assessment tools for identifying elder abuse: direct questions to elicit disclosure of abuse if it exists, identification of evident signs of abuse, and assessment of high risk for abuse.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
SETTING: Rambam and Hadassah medical centers, Israel. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred thirty persons aged 70 and older hospitalized in general hospitals in 2004/05 and their principal caregivers. MEASUREMENTS: Expanded indicator of abuse (E-IOA) tool, questionnaires looking for evident signs of abuse, and direct experience of abusive behavior.
RESULTS: Although 5.9% of respondents disclosed experiencing abusive behaviors, 21.4% were identified with evident signs of abuse, and 32.6% were classified as being at high risk for abuse. More than 70% of those who disclosed abuse were identified with evident signs and were at high risk for abuse. Those who disclosed being abused suffered particularly from physical and sexual abuse. According to logistic regression, higher caregiver subjective burden was a predictor of disclosure (odds ratio (OR)=1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.19-2.74), evident signs of abuse (OR=1.86, 95% CI=1.45-2.35), and high risk of abuse (OR=1.55, 95% CI=1.27-1.88); heavier objective caregiver load was a predictor of evident signs of abuse (OR=1.14, 95% CI=1.05-1.24) and of high risk (OR=1.18, 95% CI=1.06-1.38) only; and respondent functional status was a predictor of evident signs of abuse (OR=1.88, 95% CI=1.70-2.37).
CONCLUSION: The use of the three assessment tools is needed for optimal identification of abuse, whereas assessment for high risk proved an efficient method in the absence of respondent disclosure or professional detection of signs of abuse. Hospitalization provides an excellent opportunity for identifying elderly persons at risk of abuse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17661961     DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01269.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  6 in total

1.  Elder abuse: are we turning a blind eye to a crucial issue?

Authors:  Eminè Meral Inelmen; Giuseppe Sergi; Enzo Manzato
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 3.397

2.  Elder abuse: perception and knowledge of the phenomenon by healthcare workers from two Italian hospitals.

Authors:  Graziamaria Corbi; Ignazio Grattagliano; Carlo Sabbà; Giorgio Fiore; Sabrina Spina; Nicola Ferrara; Carlo Pietro Campobasso
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 3.397

3.  Disclosure among victims of elder abuse in healthcare settings: a missing piece in the overall effort toward detection.

Authors:  Carol Truong; David Burnes; Ramona Alaggia; Alyssa Elman; Tony Rosen
Journal:  J Elder Abuse Negl       Date:  2019-03-16

4.  Determining prevalence and correlates of elder abuse using promotores: low-income immigrant Latinos report high rates of abuse and neglect.

Authors:  Marguerite DeLiema; Zachary D Gassoumis; Diana C Homeier; Kathleen H Wilber
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Prevalence and associated factors of elder mistreatment in a rural community in People's Republic of China: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Li Wu; Hui Chen; Yang Hu; Huiyun Xiang; Xiang Yu; Tao Zhang; Zhongqiang Cao; Youjie Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Factors influencing decision-making by social care and health sector professionals in cases of elder financial abuse.

Authors:  Miranda L Davies; Mary L M Gilhooly; Kenneth J Gilhooly; Priscilla A Harries; Deborah Cairns
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2013
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.