The Relationship between Social Support and Dimensions of Elder Maltreatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction and Aims: Many studies have investigated the relationship between social support and the prevention of elder abuse; however, their results are somehow inconsistent in terms of the association. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the published studies on the relationship between social support and the prevention of elder maltreatment. Materials and Methods An electronic search was conducted until January 2023, using such databases as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The present research included cross-sectional, longitudinal, and case-control studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two researchers independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa checklist was utilized to evaluate the quality of studies. The random effects model was employed to perform a meta-analysis. Results In total, 34 studies were included in this systematic review, out of which 28 articles were eligible for meta-analysis. The results showed that 72% of the studies were of high quality, and there is a significant relationship between social support and elder maltreatment. Accordingly, the lack of social support increased overall maltreatment (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 1.17–1.38; I 2 = 94.2%, p < 0.0001)). Moreover, lack of social support had an increasing effect on the level of psychological abuse (1.49, 1.12–1.97; 88.5%, p < 0.001), physical abuse (1.42, 0.72–2.78; 70.0%, p = 0.01), and neglect (2.46, 1.10–6.01; 89.1%, p < 0.001), which shows heterogeneities among the results of the included studies. On the contrary, the lack of social support showed a decreasing effect on financial abuse (0.93, 0.87–0.99; 46.0%, p = 0.10) Conclusion This systematic review provides evidence that social support in the form of structural or functional support may plays an important role in improving the quality of life of the elderly.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".