Abstract

IMPORTANCEElder mistreatment is associated with major health and psychosocial consequences and is recognized by clinicians, policy makers, and researchers as a pervasive problem affecting a rapidly aging global population.OBJECTIVETo estimate the incidence of elder mistreatment and identify factors associated with the risk of new cases.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis research is a 10-year, longitudinal, population-based, cohort study of the incidence of elder mistreatment in New York State households conducted between 2009 (wave 1) and 2019 (wave 2). At wave 1, random digit-dial (landline and cellular telephones) stratified sampling was done to recruit English-speaking and/or Spanish-speaking, cognitively intact, community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥60 years) across New York State. The current study conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews with older adults who participated in wave 1 and gave permission to be contacted again for wave 2 interviews (response rate, 60.7%). Data analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021.EXPOSURESPhysical factors (health status, functional capacity, and age), living arrangement (coresidence), and sociocultural characteristics (sex, race/ethnicity, geocultural context, and household income).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESTen-year incidence for overall elder mistreatment and subtypes (financial abuse, emotional or psychological abuse, physical abuse, and neglect) were measured using adapted versions of the Conflict Tactics Scale, the Duke Older Americans Resources and Services scale, and the New York State Elder Mistreatment Prevalence Study financial abuse tool.RESULTSThe analytical sample included 628 older adults (mean [SD] age at wave 1, 69.20 [6.95] years; age at wave 2, 79.40 [6.93] years; 504 non-Hispanic White individuals [80.9%]; 406 women [64.6%]). Ten-year incidence rates were 11.4% (95% CI, 8.8%−14.3%) for overall elder mistreatment, 8.5% (95% CI, 6.3%–10.9%) for financial abuse, 4.1% (95% CI, 2.6%–5.7%) for emotional abuse, 2.3% (95% CI, 1.2%–3.6%) for physical abuse, and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.3%–1.8%) for neglect. Poor self-rated health at wave 1 was associated with increased risk at wave 2 of new overall mistreatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 1.35–5.84), emotional abuse (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15–11.15), physical abuse (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.14–13.70), and financial abuse (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.16–6.38). Compared with non-Hispanic White participants, Black participants were at heightened risk of overall mistreatment (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.16–5.70) and financial abuse (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.09–6.91). A change from coresidence to living alone was associated with increased risk of financial abuse (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.01–7.21).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese findings suggest that health care visits may be important opportunities to detect older adults who are at risk of mistreatment. Race is highlighted as an important social determinant for elder mistreatment requiring urgent attention.

Highlights

  • Elder mistreatment (EM) refers to an intentional act or lack of action by a person in a relationship involving an expectation of trust that causes harm or risk of harm to an older adult

  • Ten-year incidence rates were 11.4% for overall elder mistreatment, 8.5% for financial abuse, 4.1% for emotional abuse, 2.3% for physical abuse, and 1.0% for neglect

  • Poor self-rated health at wave 1 was associated with increased risk at wave 2 of new overall mistreatment, emotional abuse (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.15-11.15), physical abuse (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.14-13.70), and financial abuse (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.16-6.38)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Elder mistreatment (EM) refers to an intentional act or lack of action by a person in a relationship involving an expectation of trust that causes harm or risk of harm to an older adult. Recent reviews[4,5] of population-based EM studies have found 1-year period prevalence rates of 15.7% globally and 9.5% in the US among cognitively intact, community-dwelling older adults. EM is associated with serious health and psychosocial consequences, such as premature mortality, poor physical and mental health, diminished quality of life, and increased rates of emergency services use, hospitalization, and nursing home placement.[6,7,8] an understanding of effective community-based EM prevention strategies represents the largest knowledge gap in the literature[5]; systematic reviews routinely find that existing prevention programs are informed by weak research evidence.[9,10]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call