Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:28:43.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defining elder mistreatment: reflections on the United Kingdom Study of Abuse and Neglect of Older People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2009

JOSIE DIXON ,
JILL MANTHORPE ,
SIMON BIGGS ,
ALICE MOWLAM ,
ROSALIND TENNANT ,
ANTHEA TINKER  and
CLAUDINE MCCREADIE
JOSIE DIXON*
Affiliation:
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), London, UK.
JILL MANTHORPE
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, UK.
SIMON BIGGS
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, UK.
ALICE MOWLAM
Affiliation:
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), London, UK.
ROSALIND TENNANT
Affiliation:
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), London, UK.
ANTHEA TINKER
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, UK.
CLAUDINE MCCREADIE
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Josie Dixon, National Centre for Social Research, 35 Northampton Square, LondonEC1V 0AX, UK E-mail: j.dixon@natcen.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper critically reflects upon policy and research definitions of elder mistreatment in light of the findings of the United Kingdom Study of Abuse and Neglect of Older People that was commissioned by Comic Relief with co-funding from the Department of Health. The study uniquely comprised a national survey and follow-up qualitative research with survey respondents. This paper focuses on the findings of the qualitative component. One focus is the idea of ‘expectation of trust’, with an argument being made that the concept needs clarification for different types of relationships. It is particularly important to distinguish between trust in affective relationships and ‘positions of trust’ (as of paid carers), and to articulate the concept in terms that engage with older people's experiences and that are meaningful for different relationship categories. The qualitative research also found that ascriptions of neglect and abuse tend to be over-inclusive, in some instances to avoid identifying institutional and service failures. We also question the role and relevance of the use of chronological age in the notion of ‘elder abuse’. Given that ‘abuse’, ‘neglect’ and ‘expectation of trust’ are ill-defined and contested concepts, we recommend that although consistent definitions are important, especially for research into the epidemiology and aetiology of the syndrome and for informed policy discussion, they will unavoidably be provisional and pragmatic.

Keywords

elderabuseneglectmistreatmentdefinitiontrust
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , April 2010 , pp. 403 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biggs, S., McCreadie, C., Manthorpe, C., Tinker, A., Hills, A., Doyle, M. and Erens, B. 2008. Mistreatment of older people in the United Kingdom: findings from the first national prevalence study. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 23, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Biggs, S. and Powell, J. L. 2001. A Foucaultian analysis of old age and the power of social welfare. Journal of Ageing and Social Policy, 12, 2, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnie, R. J. and Wallace, R. B. (eds)2003. Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation in an Aging America. Committee on National Statistics and Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Brammer, A. and Biggs, S. 1998. Defining elder abuse. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 20, 3, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, A. 2008. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Chappell, N., Gee, E., McDonald, L. and Stones, M. 2003. Ageing in Contemporary Canada. Prentice Hall, Toronto.Google Scholar
Comjis, H. C., Pot, A. M., Smit, J. H., Bouter, L. M. and Jonker, C. 1998. Elder abuse in the community: prevalence and consequences. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 46, 7, 885–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K., Hardin, R. and Levi, M. 2005. Co-operation Without Trust? Russell Sage, New York.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2000. No Secrets: Guidance on Developing and Implementing Multi-agency Policies and Procedures to Protect Vulnerable Adults from Abuse. Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Finkelhor, D. and Pillemer, K. A. 1988. Elder abuse: its relation to other forms of domestic violence. In Hotaling, G. T., Finkelhor, D., Kirkpatrick, J. T. and Strauss, M. A. (eds), Family Abuse and its Consequences: New Directions in Research. Sage, Newbury Park, California, 244–54.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. 1964. Essentially contested concepts. In Gallie, W. B. (ed.), Philosophy and the Historical Understanding. Chatto and Windus, London, 157–91.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1993. The Giddens Reader. Editor: Philip Cassell, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Glaser, K., Stuchbury, R., Tomassini, C. and Askham, J. 2008. The long term consequences of partnership dissolution for support in later life in the United Kingdom. Ageing & Society, 28, 3, 329–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbison, J. 1999. The changing career of ‘elder abuse and neglect’ as a social problem in Canada: learning from feminist frameworks? Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 11, 4, 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, R. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. Russell Sage, New York.Google Scholar
Kane, R. A. 1990. Venerable and perhaps vulnerable: the nature and extent of vulnerability amongst the aged. In Harel, Z., Erlich, P. and Hubbard, R. (eds), The Vulnerable Aged: People, Services and Policies. Springer Publishing Company, New York, 4–17.Google Scholar
Lachs, M. S. and Pillemer, K. A. 2004. Elder abuse. The Lancet, 364, 1263–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leroux, T. G. and Petrunik, M. 1990. The construction of elder abuse as a social problem: a Canadian perspective. International Journal of Health Services, 20, 4, 651–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luhmann, N. 1980. Trust: a mechanism for the reduction of social complexity. In Luhmann, N. (ed.), Trust and Power. Wiley, New York, 4–103.Google Scholar
McCreadie, C. 2007. The mistreatment and abuse of older people. Journal of Care Services Management, 1, 2, 173–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misztal, B. 1996. Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mowlam, A., Tennant, R., Dixon, J. and McCreadie, C. 2007. UK Study of Abuse and Neglect of Older People: Qualitative Findings. Comic Relief, London.Google Scholar
National Assembly for Wales 2000. In Safe Hands: Implementing Adult Protection Procedures in Wales. Social Services Inspectorate, Cardiff, UK.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, M., Hills, A., Doyle, M., McCreadie, C., Scholes, S., Constantine, R., Tinker, A., Manthorpe, J., Biggs, S. and Erens, B. 2007. UK Study of Abuse and Neglect of Older People: Prevalence Survey Report. National Centre for Social Research, London.Google Scholar
Ogg, J. and Bennett, G. 1992. Elder abuse in Britain. British Medical Journal, 305, 998–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okin, S. M. 1989. Justice, Gender and the Family. Basic, New York.Google Scholar
Penhale, B. 2003. The concept of elder abuse. Unpublished paper presented at the conference Elder Abuse: Can We Achieve a World without Violence? Queen Sofia Centre for the Study of Violence, Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
Pillemer, K. and Finkelhor, D. 1988. The prevalence of elder abuse: a random sample survey. The Gerontologist, 28, 1, 51–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podnieks, E., Pillemer, K., Shillington, T. and Frizzel, A. 1990. National Survey on Abuse of the Elderly in Canada: The Ryerson Study. Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (eds)2003. Qualitative Research: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Sentencing Guidelines Council 2004. Over-arching Principles: Seriousness. Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat, London. Available online at http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/Seriousness_guideline.pdf [Accessed 20 January 2009].Google Scholar
Stevens, M. and Manthorpe, J. 2007. Barring inappropriate people? The operation of a barring list of social care workers: an analysis of the first referrals to the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) List. Health and Social Care in the Community, 15, 4, 285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stones, M. J. 1995. Scope and definition of elder abuse and neglect in Canada. In MacLean, M. J. (ed.), Abuse and Neglect of Older Canadians: Strategies for Change. Thompson Educational, Toronto, 111–16.Google Scholar
Von Lampe, K. and Johansen, P. 2003. Criminal networks and trust. Paper presented at the third annual meeting of the European Society of Criminology, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Williams, B., Stacey, C., Sawyer, C. and Wahlstrom, C. 2005. Marriages, Families and Intimate Relationships. Pearson, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation and International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse 2002. Missing Voices: Views of Older Persons on Elder Abuse. World Health Organisation, Geneva.Google Scholar