Cited by 659Elder Abuse and NeglectChild Abuse and TraumaIntimate Partner and Family Violence

The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review

Cooper, Claudia, Selwood, Amber, Livingston, Gill·2008·Age and Ageing

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ageing/afm194

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, C., Selwood, A., & Livingston, G.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • North East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Claudia
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2008
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
151-160
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W2133671511
Cited by
650
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 67 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 44
FWCI
14.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Age and Ageing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
Keywords
elder abuse, elder neglect, prevalence, psychological violence, physical abuse, family caregivers, nursing home staff, dementia care, adult protective services, abuse reporting, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Elder Abuse, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Geriatric Assessment, Prevalence, Survival Analysis, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Risk Assessment, Needs Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review