Research on Abuse in Home Care: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home care is the preferred care option for most people who need support; yet abuse exists in these settings toward both home care workers and clients. There are no existing reviews that assess the scope of current research on abuse in home care, and tangentially related reviews are dated. For these reasons, a scoping review is warranted to map the current state of research on abuse in home care and examine current interventions in this field. Databases selected for searching were Medline and EMBASE on OVID, Scopus, and the following databases in EBSCOhost: Academic Search Complete, AgeLine, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Records were included if: (a) they were written in English; (b) the participants were home care workers or clients age 18 years or older; (c) they were published in journals; (d) they undertook empirical research; and (e) they were published within the last 10-year period. Following Graham et al. (2006), the 52 included articles are categorized as either knowledge inquiry or as intervention studies. We find three themes among knowledge inquiry studies: (1) prevalence and types of abuse in home care, (2) abuse in the context of living with dementia, and (3) working conditions and abuse. Analysis from the intervention studies suggest that not all organizations have specific policies and practices to prevent abuse, and no existing interventions to protect the well-being of clients were identified. Findings from this review can inform up-to-date practice and policymaking to improve the health and well-being of home care clients and workers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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".