Cited by 44Elder Abuse and NeglectChild Abuse and TraumaChild Abuse and Related Trauma

“Build Rapport, Otherwise No Screening Tools in the World Are Going to Help”: Frontline Service Providers’ Views on Current Screening Tools for Elder Abuse

Brijnath, Bianca, Gahan, Luke, Gaffy, Ellen, Dow, Briony·2020·The Gerontologist

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 Criticisms of the tools included: using outdated terminology, asking binary questions, asking multiple questions at once, failure to consider the older person’s cognitive status, failure to consider how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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geront/gny166

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
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
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