Domestic elder abuse in Yazd, Iran: a cross-sectional study

Morowatisharifabad, Mohammad Ali; Rezaeipandari, Hassan; Dehghani, Ali; Zeinali, Ahmad

doi:10.15171/hpp.2016.18

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sampling was done from 22 comprehensive health centers covered by Shohaday-e-Enghelab and Shohaday-e-Valfajr health centers. Based on a similar study performed by Morovati Sharifabaid et al [ 23 ] in Yazd in 2016, considering p = 0.63 (the rate of abuse), α = 0.05, d = 0.05, and non-response rate = 0.10, and using the following formula, sample size was finalized at 400 subjects. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Screening for domestic abuse and its relationship with demographic variables among elderly individuals referred to primary health care centers of Shiraz in 2018

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Elder abuse is an important public health problem. The present study was aimed to determine the rate of domestic abuse and its relationship with demographic characteristics among elderly people referred to Primary Health Care (PHC) centers in Shiraz, Iran, 2018. Methods: This descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted on 400 older people aged 60 years old and above who referred to 22 PHC centers of Shiraz. The data were collected using demographic characteristics questionnaire, Katz index, the domestic elder abuse questionnaire, and elder neglect checklist through face-to-face interview and observation methods. Backward linear regression model was used for analyzing the data. Results: The results indicated that 52.5% of the participants were female and 51.8% aged 60-69 years old. A total of 159 cases (39.8%) reflected at least one form of elder abuse or neglect. The results indicated that 21% of the participants (n = 84) were abused by their own children. Care neglect was the most reported form (42.8%), followed by psychological abuse (41.3%), emotional neglect (38.8%), and financial abuse (34.3%). The most common types of neglect were motion limitations (25%) followed by the dental problems (23.8%). The results also showed a significant relationship between domestic elder abuse and level of income (p = 0.017), having a house (p = 0.028), type of perpetrator (< 0.001), and insurance status (p = 0.027). Conclusions: The results revealed a considerable rate of domestic abuse against elderly people, causing a serious risk for their health and security.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most studies conducted on domestic abuse in Iran, the data were collected by questionnaires ( [7,8,20,21,23], and). However, considering the nature of domestic elder abuse, it seems that the quantitative method could not present a precise picture of the elderly population's status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for domestic abuse and its relationship with demographic variables among elderly individuals referred to primary health care centers of Shiraz in 2018

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One study reported data only for females (17), while the remainder included male as well as female participants. Eight studies used the Iranian domestic elder abuse questionnaire (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), three (25-27) used a researcher-designed questionnaire and two studies (28,29) used the elder assessment instrument. Nine studies (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)27) provided past-year prevalence data for abuse and four (25,26,28,29) provided prevalence data for any abuse that had occurred since the victims became older adults (i.e., aged 60 -65 years and older; Table 1).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to differences among instruments in assessing elder abuse, data originally used from 13 studies were on physical, psychological and financial abuse (17-29), 10 studies on abandonment (17-24, 28, 29), nine studies on care neglect (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)27), eight studies on financial neglect, emotional neglect and authority deprivation (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), four studies on neglect (25,26,28,29), and 10 studies on overall prevalence of elder abuse and neglect (17, 18, 20-23, 25, 27, 28). The overall rates across all forms of abuse ranged from 14.7% in a study from Ahvaz, Iran (27) to 87.8% in a study from Tehran, Iran (25).…”

Section: Estimated Prevalence Of Elder Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, only studies that used Iranian domestic elder abuse questionnaire were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. For the prevalence estimates, we used data from eight studies on physical abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse, emotional neglect, financial neglect, care neglect, authority deprivation and abandonment (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24) and six studies on the overall prevalence of elder abuse and neglect (17,18,(20)(21)(22)(23).…”

Section: Estimated Prevalence Of Elder Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence of Elder Abuse and Neglect in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ghiasi

2018

Shiraz E-Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Elder abuse remains one of the most hidden forms of intra-family conflict within many societies. The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence of elder abuse in Iran. Methods: International and national electronic databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, SID, Magiran, Irandoc and Google Scholar were searched from inception to April 22, 2018. The quality of studies was assessed using the "STROBE" checklist. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that used the same questionnaire and reported estimates of annual prevalence of elder abuse. Results: Of 1386 articles retrieved in the initial search, 13 studies were selected for systematic review, of which eight studies were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. The overall rates across all forms of abuse ranged widely from 14.7% to 87.8%. The pooled prevalence rate for overall elder abuse was 60% (95% CI: 42%-78%). The pooled prevalence estimate in the domains of elder abuse was 13% (95% CI: 7%-18%) for physical abuse, 36% (95% CI: 24%-47%) for psychological abuse, 31% (95% CI: 18%-43%) for financial abuse, 28% (95% CI: 19%-37%) for financial neglect, 36% (95% CI: 22%-50%) for care neglect, 43% (95% CI: 31%-55%) for emotional neglect, 25% (95% CI: 16%-35%) for authority deprivation, and 13% (95% CI: 8%-18%) for abandonment. Conclusions: The results of the study showed the high prevalence of elder abuse in Iran, which requires the initiation of effective interventions by the legal authorities.

show abstract

Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

Mohd Mydin,

Mikton,

Choo

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.ObjectivesThis review rigorously employed the Consensus‐based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.Search MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.Selection CriteriaAll quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed‐method empirical studies published in peer‐reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.Data Collection and AnalysisTwo reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the preset selection criteria. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence for each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated COSMIN criteria of good measurement properties. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion or with assistance from a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement instrument was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction was performed using data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The extracted data included information on the characteristics of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, instrument development, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross‐cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and interoperability. All data were synthesised and summarised qualitatively, and no meta‐analysis was performed.Main ResultsWe found 15,200 potentially relevant records, of which 382 were screened in full text. A total of 114 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported on more than one instrument. The primary reasons for excluding studies were their focus on instruments used solely for screening and diagnostic purposes, those conducted in hospital settings, or those without evaluating psychometric properties. Eighty‐seven studies reported on 46 original instruments and 29 studies on 22 modified versions of an original instrument. The majority of the studies were conducted in community settings (97 studies) from the perspective of older adults (90 studies) and were conducted in high‐income countries (69 studies). Ninety‐five studies assessed multiple forms of abuse, ranging from 2 to 13 different subscales; four studies measured overall abuse and neglect among older adults, and 14 studies measured one specific type of abuse. Approximately one‐quarter of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the most frequently used measurement instruments: HS‐EAST (assessed in 11 studies), VASS‐12 items (in 9 studies), and CASE (in 9 studies). The instruments with the most evidence available in studies reporting on instrument development and content validity in all domains (relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were the DEAQ, OAPAM, *RAAL‐31 items, *ICNH (Norwegian) and OAFEM. For other psychometric properties, instruments with the most evidence available in terms of the number of studies were the HS‐EAST (11 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), CASE (9 studies across 6 of 9 psychometric properties), VASS‐12 items (9 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties) and GMS (5 studies across 4 of 9 psychometric properties). Based on the overall rating and quality of evidence, the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used for prevalence measurement in community and institutional settings were insufficient and of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThis review aimed to assess the overall rating and quality of evidence for instruments measuring AOP in the community and institutional settings. Our findings revealed various measurement instruments, with ratings and evidence quality predominantly indicating insufficiency and low quality. In summary, the psychometric properties of AOP measurement instruments have not been comprehensively investigated, and existing instruments lack sufficient evidence to support their validity and reliability.

show abstract

Domestic elder abuse in Yazd, Iran: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 24 publications

References 20 publications

Screening for domestic abuse and its relationship with demographic variables among elderly individuals referred to primary health care centers of Shiraz in 2018

Screening for domestic abuse and its relationship with demographic variables among elderly individuals referred to primary health care centers of Shiraz in 2018

Prevalence of Elder Abuse and Neglect in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About