Abstract
Objective Over the last two decades, authors have argued the rate of abuse among older adults in institutional settings has been underestimated due to challenges in defining and responding to the issue. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an in-depth analysis of empirical studies examining methodologies measuring abuse of older people residing in a long-term institutional care facility (nursing homes, independent living and assisted living facilities), specifically staff-to-resident abuse.
Methods Guided by PRISMA guidelines, 10 databases were searched from 2005 till July 2023. This review inclusion criteria were any type of abuse, as defined by the World Health Organization reported by staff and residents, family and relatives, and public anonymous registries. This article also includes a methodological critical assessment of studies which has not been conducted before. To direct the review, we use four guiding questions: a) what are the study characteristics? b) what are the methods and measurement tools that have been used? c) what has been the impact of methodology on the results? and d) what is the quality of these studies?
Results In the last 18 years, 22 studies from eight counties undertook cross-sectional examinations of staff-to-resident abuse. The review identified a heterogeneity of definitions of abuse and variations with who reported abuse, measurement tools and recall periods. We found the quality of studies varied significantly, with no consistency.
Discussion These 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.
Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO registry number: CRD42018055484, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Prospero https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵¶All authors have made substantial contributions to all three of sections (1), (2) and (3) below:
(1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data: AGALIOTIS, MORRIS, KATZ, GREENFIELD
(2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content: AGALIOTIS, MORRIS, KATZ, GREENFIELD
(3) final approval of the version to be submitted: AGALIOTIS, MORRIS, KATZ, GREENFIELD
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Role of the Funding Source: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Ethical standards: This project did not collect empirical data so ethical approval was not required.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
