Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review
Cooper C, Selwood A, Livingston G.. Age and ageing, 2008-03-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
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) (1-2%) 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cooper, C., Selwood, A., & Livingston, G. (2008). The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afm194
Vancouver
Cooper C, Selwood A, Livingston G. The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review. Age and ageing. 2008. doi:10.1093/ageing/afm194. PMID: 18349012.
BibTeX
@article{cooper2008-18349012,
author = {Cooper, C. and Selwood, A. and Livingston, G.},
title = {{The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review}},
journal = {Age and ageing},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1093/ageing/afm194},
pmid = {18349012},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afm194}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- 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.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Effect size5.6%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 18349012) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.