Practitioner Experience With Mistreated Older Adults Who Have Dementia: Understanding Contextual Influences and Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of mistreatment of older adults have revealed alarmingly higher prevalence rates of mistreatment of those who have dementia. When the mistreatment occurs within the context of the home and is perpetrated by a family caregiver, it may remain hidden and only be discovered by the health and social service practitioners who have access to the home. Understanding the contexts within which this mistreatment occurs, and the influence of these contexts on the experience of these practitioners as well as on the resulting outcomes for mistreated older adults, has received little attention in the literature. This qualitative study, framed by critical social theory, aimed to answer the following research question: What are the contextual influences on practitioner experience with mistreatment of older adults with dementia by a caregiver within the home? Specifically, this study explored contextual influences within a Canadian province, where there is neither specific adult protective legislation nor infrastructure when mistreatment occurs within the home. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews, journals, and focus groups with 51 practitioners from various disciplines providing services to mistreated older adults with dementia in their homes. Theoretical thematic analysis led to the discovery of five contextual themes influencing the experience: the privileged burden of seeing behind closed doors; a domestic problem within a societal context; interprofessional challenges; a history of stagnation, losses, and systems failure; and a legislative complexity and oppression. Understanding these contextual influences is crucial to supporting practitioners, who, although entrusted to protect mistreated older adults, describe powerlessness within current contexts. This understanding is needed to improve outcomes for mistreated older adults with dementia.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".