Prevalence and Correlates of Elder Abuse and Neglect in a Geriatric Psychiatry Service
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and correlates of 4 types of elder abuse and neglect in a geriatric psychiatry service. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective chart review of new in- and outpatients seen by the Montreal General Hospital Division of Geriatric Psychiatry in one calendar year. RESULTS: Abuse or neglect was suspected or confirmed in 20 (16%) of 126 patients, comprising financial abuse in 16 (13%), neglect in 7 (6%), emotional abuse in 5 (4%), physical abuse in 3 (2%), and multiple abuse in 7 (6%). On bivariate analysis, patients living with nonspouse family, friends, or other persons were significantly more likely to have suffered abuse than were those living with their spouse or in a supervised setting (OR 10.5; 95%CI, 2.3 to 47.8); widowed, divorced, or separated patients were significantly more likely to have suffered abuse than were married patients (OR 4.7; 95%CI, 1.02 to 22.0). Nonsignificant trends included female sex (OR 4.1; 95%CI, 0.89 to 18.6); alcohol abuse (OR 2.1; 95%CI, 0.71 to 6.2); behaviour problems (OR 1.9; 95%CI, 0.71 to 5.2); and chronic cognitive impairment (OR 1.4; 95%CI, 0.55 to 3.8). Although living situation with nonspouse family, friends, or others and marital status of widowed, divorced, or separated were significantly associated with abuse when examined in separate logistic regression models, both were nonsignificant when examined together, suggesting collinearity. Both were retained in the model because they probably represent different aspects of vulnerability. The final model included living situation with nonspouse family, friends, or others (OR 6.1; 95%CI, 0.75 to 49.5) and widowed, divorced, or separated marital status (OR 2.4; 95%CI, 0.21 to 26.8). Nonsignificant trends included female sex (OR 2.6; 95%CI, 0.45 to 14.4); alcohol abuse (OR 2.2; 95%CI, 0.59 to 7.9); and lowest quartile on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale (GAF < 35; OR 2.0; 95%CI, 0.64 to 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: The practical implications of our study are that elder abuse and neglect are common among patients referred to geriatric psychiatry services, that such services should have access to multidisciplinary expertise and resources to deal with abuse, and that certain situations may signal higher risk. In our setting, the situation of living with nonspouse family, friends, or other persons in a nonsupervised setting and a history of family disruption by widowhood, divorce, or separation were significant correlates of abuse. Suggestive but nonsignificant trends of potential importance (OR > or = 2.0) included female sex, alcohol abuse, and lowest quartile of functional status. Study limitations include a cross-sectional retrospective chart review design, a clinically derived sample, a small sample size, and a lack of structured instruments for several variables.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».