Consequences of Elder Abuse and Neglect: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of a systematic review of the consequences of elder abuse and neglect (EAN). A systematic search was conducted in seven electronic databases and three sources of gray literature up to January 8, 2016, supplemented by scanning of citation lists in relevant articles and contact with field experts. All observational studies investigating elder abuse as a risk factor for adverse health outcomes, mortality, and health-care utilization were included. Of 517 articles initially captured, 19 articles met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Two reviewers independently performed abstract screening, full-texts appraisal, and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Across 19 studies, methodological heterogeneity was a prominent feature; seven definitions of EAN and nine measurement tools for abuse were employed. Summary of results reveals a wide range of EAN outcomes, from premature mortality to increased health-care consumption and various forms of physical and psychological symptoms. Higher risks of mortality emerged as the most credible outcome, while the majority of morbidity outcomes originated from cross-sectional studies. Our findings suggest that there is an underrepresentation of older adults from non-Western populations and developing countries, and there is a need for more population-based prospective studies in middle- and low-income regions. Evidence gathered from this review is crucial in upgrading current practices, formulating policies, and shaping the future direction of research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it