An assessment of interventions that target risk factors for elder abuse
Open accessAbstract
Although there is increasing concern about both the prevalence of, and harms associated with the abuse of older adults, progress in the development of interventions to prevent its occurrence has been slow. This paper reports the findings of a systematic review of the published literature that identified studies in which the outcomes of preventative interventions are described. A total of eight different intervention trials, published since 2004, are described across the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of prevention and in terms of the types of risk factor that they target. The current evidence to support the effectiveness of these interventions is not only limited by the small number of outcome studies but also the poor quality of evaluation designs and the focus of many interventions on single risk factors. It is concluded that work is needed to strengthen the evidence base that supports the delivery of interventions to prevent elder abuse.
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
The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review
Cooper, C., Selwood, A., & Livingston, G. (2008) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afm194 · Cited by 650 · see citing works
A systematic review of interventions for elder abuse
Ploeg, J., Fear, J., Hutchison, B., MacMillan, H., & Bolan, G. (2009) · Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1080/08946560902997181 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Day, A., Boni, N., Evert, H., & Knight, T.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Day, Andrew
- Venue
- Health & Social Care in the Community
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2016-02-22
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1532-1541
- ISSN
- 0966-0410 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2286497627
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Health & Social Care in the Community (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (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, abuse prevention, risk factors, preventive interventions, older adults, primary prevention, secondary prevention, tertiary prevention, intervention effectiveness, assessment quality
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Elder Abuse, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Primary Prevention, Risk Factors, Geriatric Assessment, Prevalence, Caregivers
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