BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO HELP-SEEKING FOR ELDER ABUSE: A QUALITATIVE STUDY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF VICTIMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding help-seeking among victims of elder abuse (EA) is a major challenge and significant knowledge gap in the field. The vast majority of EA victims are not connected with formal response systems, such as Adult Protective Services, law enforcement, and other agencies responsible for addressing this issue in the community. The current study sought to understand barriers and facilitators to help-seeking from the perspective of EA victims. Using a descriptive phenomenological approach, this study conducted in-depth, individual, qualitative interviews with a diverse sample (n = 32) of EA victims living in New York City and Los Angeles, United States. Analysis followed a constant comparison process involving two independent coders of verbatim transcripts. Major themes that emerged as barriers to help-seeking included: embarrassment or shame, self-blame or guilt, fear of perpetrator retaliation, fear of what could happen to perpetrator, concern for family preservation, and lack of awareness of services. Facilitators in the process of help-seeking included: reaching a “tipping point”, concern for self-preservation, accessibility and convenience of services, and having knowledge about where and how to seek support. These findings emphasize that barriers and facilitators to help-seeking span various levels of ecological influence, including the individual victim, the individual perpetrator, the victim-perpetrator relationship, and the family system. To promote greater help-seeking among EA victims, there must be accessible interventions that help address the complex and interrelated psychological, emotional, relational, and familial factors that impact help-seeking behavior among EA victims.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".