Cited by 109Elder Abuse and NeglectChild Abuse and Related TraumaChild Abuse and Trauma

Knowledge, detection and reporting of abuse by health and social care professionals: a systematic review

Cooper, Claudia, Selwood, Amber, Livingston, Gill·2009·The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

The authors systematically reviewed the 32 articles fitting predetermined criteria that investigated health and social care professionals' knowledge, detection, and reporting of elder abuse. These included 21 surveys (of 5,325 professionals), nine analyses of elder abuse reports to statutory bodies, and two intervention studies. Compatible results were pooled in a meta-analysis. Professionals consistently underestimated the prevalence of elder abuse. Only a quarter of U.S. physicians were aware of American Medical Association elder abuse guidelines. The authors found that 33.7% (95% confidence interval: 27.5-40.1) of health care professionals had detected a case of older adult abuse in the last year. This was slightly higher when only studies judged to be most representative, which all surveyed physicians, were included (39.9% [23.4-57.7]). About half of the detected abuse cases were reported. Professionals who recalled receiving any training on abuse were no more likely to detect abuse than those who stated they had not had training, although they were more likely to report the abuse if they detected it. Interventions that taught professionals about the management of abuse by face-to-face training were effective in increasing knowledge, whereas giving written information was not. No intervention studies have investigated whether detection and reporting of abuse can also be increased through education. Current evidence would support the development and testing of interventions to increase professionals' detection and reporting of abuse. These would encourage them to ask older people about abuse, and address professionals' concerns about the impact of reporting on therapeutic relationships, victims; and legal consequences for the reporter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/jgp.0b013e3181b0fa2e

Cites

43 of 43 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)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Claudia
Venue
The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
826-838
ISSN
1064-7481 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985438196
Cited by
109
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Child Abuse and Related Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
Keywords
elder abuse, elder abuse detection, elder abuse reporting, healthcare workers, social care workers, professional knowledge, underestimation of prevalence, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Elder Abuse, Health Personnel, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Social Work, Guidelines as Topic, Mandatory Reporting, Guideline Adherence

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