Help-Seeking Among Victims of Elder Abuse: Findings From the National Elder Mistreatment Study
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
OBJECTIVES: The vast majority of elder abuse (EA) victims remain hidden from formal institutional response systems. Guided by the Behavioral Model of Health Services Use, this study examined factors that facilitate or impede formal help-seeking among victims of elder emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. METHODS: Data came from a national, population-based EA study in the United States with a representative sample (n = 304) of past-year victims. Gold-standard strategies were used to assess EA subtypes. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify help-seeking facilitators/barriers. RESULTS: Help-seeking through reporting to police or other authorities occurred among only 15.4% of EA victims. Help-seeking was higher among victims of physical abuse, poly-victimization, or those with a perpetrator having prior police trouble. Help-seeking was lower among victims who were dependent upon their perpetrator and in cases where the perpetrator had a large friendship network. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the hidden nature of EA as a problem in our society and the need to develop strategies that incorporate victim, perpetrator, and victim-perpetrator relationship factors to promote greater help-seeking among victims.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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