Jackson Shelly L, Hafemeister Thomas L
University of Virginia-Charlottesville, VA 22908-0660, USA.
Violence Vict. 2011;26(6):738-57. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.26.6.738.
Elder abuse research rarely differentiates by the type of elder maltreatment involved when identifying risk factors. The purpose of this study was to compare risk factors across four predominant types of elder maltreatment (financial exploitation, physical abuse, neglect by others, and hybrid financial exploitation [HFE]). Data were collected from two sources: interviews with victims of substantiated elder abuse, responding adult protective services (APS) caseworkers (N = 71), and third-party informants; and a statewide database that contained all substantiated cases over a corresponding 2-year period (N = 2,142). Using chi-square (interview data) and logistic regressions (Adult Services/Adult Protective Services [ASAPS] data), significant differences across the four types of elder maltreatment were found. These two datasets provide converging evidence for the importance of differentiating by type of maltreatment when identifying risk factors for elder maltreatment and for the importance of considering both the elderly victim and the abusive individual when predicting type of elder maltreatment.
虐待老年人的研究在识别风险因素时很少按所涉及的虐待类型进行区分。本研究的目的是比较四种主要虐待老年人类型（经济剥削、身体虐待、他人忽视和混合经济剥削[HFE]）的风险因素。数据从两个来源收集：对经证实的虐待老年人受害者、做出回应的成人保护服务（APS）个案工作者（N = 71）和第三方举报人进行访谈；以及一个包含相应两年期间所有经证实案件的全州数据库（N = 2,142）。使用卡方检验（访谈数据）和逻辑回归（成人服务/成人保护服务[ASAPS]数据），发现四种虐待老年人类型之间存在显著差异。这两个数据集为以下两点提供了相互印证的证据：在识别虐待老年人的风险因素时按虐待类型进行区分的重要性，以及在预测虐待老年人的类型时同时考虑老年受害者和施虐者的重要性。
