“Build Rapport, Otherwise No Screening Tools in the World Are Going to Help”: Frontline Service Providers’ Views on Current Screening Tools for Elder Abuse
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Without an effective screening tool, accompanied by clear guidelines of what to do when elder abuse is suspected, health workers may face challenges when asking questions about elder abuse. This study aimed to find the most effective and acceptable existing elder abuse screening tool and to create guidelines for using the tool. Research Design and Methods: A rapid review of the literature identified existing validated elder abuse screening tools. Then, 5 tools (Vulnerability to Abuse Screening Scale [VASS], Elder Abuse Suspicion Index [EASI], Elder Assessment Instrument [EAI], Caregiver Abuse Screen [CASE], and Brief Abuse Screen for the Elderly [BASE]), selected based on their internal rigor, were presented to health professionals to assess the tools’ relevance to their practice. Three focus groups were held with 23 health professionals in Victoria, Australia, in 2017. Data were thematically analyzed. Results: None of the tools were deemed suitable by participants for use in their practice. Criticisms of the tools included: using outdated terminology, asking binary questions, asking multiple questions at once, failure to consider the older person’s cognitive status, failure to consider how culture mediates elder abuse, and failure to outline a referral pathway to those administering the tool. Participants emphasized that the screening tool must promote trust and rapport between the assessor and the older person to solicit a story on this sensitive subject. Discussion and Implications: A successful elder abuse screening tool must be concise, easy to use, account for the older person’s health and social vulnerabilities, and outline a referral pathway if elder abuse is suspected.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation?
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732316654870 · Cited by 3,970 · see citing works
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742 · see citing works
The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale
Storey, J. E., Rowland, J. T. J., Conforti, D. A., & Dickson, H. G. (2004) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610204000043 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Cooper, C., Selwood, A., & Livingston, G. (2009) · The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/jgp.0b013e3181b0fa2e · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Brijnath, B., Gahan, L., Gaffy, E., & Dow, B.
- Affiliations
- Curtin University (AU)
- La Trobe University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Brijnath, Bianca
- Venue
- The Gerontologist
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-12-20
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 472-482
- ISSN
- 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-5341
- OpenAlex
- W2906577118
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 7.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- State Trustees Australia Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Child Abuse and Related Trauma
- Keywords
- elder abuse, frontline health workers, rapport building, referral pathways, cognitive status, older adults
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Elder Abuse, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Psychometrics, Victoria, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research
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