MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151623273 · doi:10.1177/070674370204700507

Prevalence and Correlates of Elder Abuse and Neglect in a Geriatric Psychiatry Service

2002· article· en· W2151623273 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectSpousePsychiatryElder abuseAlcohol abuseMedicineMarital statusPhysical abuseGeriatricsGeriatric psychiatrySubstance abusePsychological abusePsychologyPoison controlSexual abuseSuicide preventionMedical emergencyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it