SynthesisPloS one2025
Global approaches to older abuse research in institutional care settings: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the last two decades, abuse of older adults in institutional settings has been underestimated due to challenges in defining and responding to the issue. This systematic review aims to analyze empirical studies on measuring abuse of older people residing in a long-term care facility, specifically staff-to-resident abuse.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched 10 databases from January 2005 till June 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed World Health Organization-defined abuse types (physical, psychological, financial, sexual and neglect, intentional or unintentional), reported by staff, residents, family, or public registries, with methodological critical assessment.
findingsIn the last 18 years, 22 studies from eight counties examined of staff-to-resident abuse, with significant heterogeneity in definitions, reporting sources, and measurement tools. Quality of studies varied, lacking consistency. Relatives and staff typically report highest abuse rates, while residents report fewer incidents, even with fewer incidents of observed abuse. Registries tend to capture extreme cases, resulting in lower reported prevalence rates, particularly of physical or sexual abuse and neglect. Physical abuse was the most reported, with 81 different descriptors identified and varying recall periods. Staff witnessing abuse ranged from 44% over four weeks to as low as 1.4% over 12 months, posing challenges for data interpretation.
conclusionThese variations in study methodologies impacted the ability to synthesise the findings making it difficult to estimate a global prevalence rate of aged care abuse. From the analysis, we develop an Aged Care Abuse Research Checklist (ACARC) as a first step towards achieving a global standardized, evidence-based methodology for this field. Doing so will normalize processes within organizations and the community, allowing early interventions to change practices, reduce the risk of recurrence and improve resident quality of care and workplace cultures. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018055484.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.