Family physicians’ knowledge levels about elder abuse and neglect in a province of Türkiye and hesitations in reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and reservations of family physicians (FPs) in reporting elderly abuse and neglect (EAN). METHODS: Our cross-sectional study was conducted with 161 FPs in Kütahya, a city in Türkiye. A questionnaire including demographic characteristics, the frequency with which Elder Abuse Suspicion Index (EASI) questions were asked and knowledge level of EAN was applied to the FPs. RESULTS: Only about a quarter (24.2%) of the FPs felt competent regarding EAN. The rate of participants who had encountered EAN victims before was 46%. Of these, 40% reported psychological violence, 24.3% reported physical and psychological violence and 21.6% reported only physical violence. FPs also reported that inconsistency in anamnesis (87.0%), inconsistency between anamnesis and physical examination findings (85.1%) and frequent visits to the emergency department (59.6%) raised suspicion about EAN. It was also observed that 68.9% of the FPs knew that healthcare professionals had a legal obligation to report elder abuse. Only 23.0% of the FPs who encountered cases of violence and abuse stated that they had made a legal report. Among the FPs who did not report, 40.4% stated that they did not report because they had some reservations or did not know how to do so (35.1%). CONCLUSION: Due to a lack of knowledge and some concerns, the rate of reporting EAN to judicial authorities was also low. FPs were not aware of the importance of EAN in terms of elderly health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".