A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES PRACTITIONERS RESPONDING TO CASES OF ELDER ABUSE AND SELF-NEGLECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adult Protective Services (APS) practitioners play a critical role in supporting older adults experiencing elder abuse and self-neglect (EASN), however, very little research has examined their experiences, from their perspectives. The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of APS practitioners responding to allegations of EASN. Using a descriptive phenomenological qualitative methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with APS practitioners (n = 14) from the state of Maine. To enhance trustworthiness, two independent assessors analyzed transcript data to code transcripts into themes. Two domains, each with various subthemes, were identified: (1) rewarding elements of role and (2) challenging aspects of role. The findings of this study emphasize how APS practitioners are motivated by their capacity to help elicit positive change in the lives of their clients and support the well-being of older adults experiencing EASN. However, APS practitioners must navigate numerous challenges and barriers in their role, including time constraints, high and complex caseloads, limited resources, and broader misconceptions on APS. These findings highlight the importance of addressing these stressors to support the well-being of APS practitioners, which, in turn, can help support the vulnerable older adults they serve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".