Search

Objective To establish global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention using a systematic approach. Methods Research priorities were identified in a three-round process involving two surveys. In round 1, 95 global experts in violence prevention proposed research questions to be ranked in round 2. Questions were collated and organized according to the four-step public health approach to violence prevention. In round 2,280 International experts ranked the importance of research in the four steps, and the various substeps, ofthe public health approach. In round 3,131 international experts ranked the importance of detailed research questions on the public health step awarded the highest priority In round 2. Findings In round 2, 'developing, Implementing and evaluating interventions' was the step of the public health approach awarded the highest priority for four of the six types, of violence considered (i.e. child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, armed violence and sexual violence) but not for youth violence or elder abuse. In contrast, 'scaling up interventions and evaluating their cost-effectiveness' was ranked lowest for all types of violence. In round 3, research into' developing, implementing and evaluating interventions' that addressed parenting or laws to regulate the use of firearms was awarded the highest priority. The key limitations of the study were response and attrition rates among survey respondents. However, these rates were in line with similar priority-setting exercises. Conclusion These findings suggest It is premature to scale up violence prevention interventions. Developing and evaluating smaller-scale interventions should be the funding priority. Objectif Definir les priorites mondiales de recherche pour la prevention de la violence Interpersonnelle a l'aide d'une approche systematique. Methodes Les priorites de recherche ont ete etablies au cours d'un processus en trois cycles, comprenant deux questionnaires. Durant le premier cycle, 95 experts mondiaux dans le domaine de la prevention de la violence ont propose des questions de recherche, qui seraient classees au cours du deuxieme cycle. Ces questions ont ete rassemblees et organisees suivant l'approche en quatre etapes de la prevention de la violence axee sur la sante publique. Lors du deuxieme cycle du processus, 280 experts Internationaux ont classe parordre d'importance les recherches concernant les quatre etapes et les differentes sous-etapes de cette approche axee sur la sante publique. Au cours du troisieme cycle, 131 experts internationaux ont classe par ordre d'importance des questions de recherche detaillees sur l'etape consideree comme prioritaire au cycle no. 2. Resultats Lors du deuxieme cycle, <> etait l'etape de l'approche de sante publique jugee prioritaire pour quatre des six types de violence consideres (a savoir maltraitance de l'enfant, violence a l'encontre du partenaire intime, violence armee et violence sexuelle) mais non pour la violence chez les jeunes ou la maltraitance des personnes agees. A l'inverse, <> etait juge comme letape la moins importante pour tous les types de violence. Lors du troisieme cycle, <> relatives au role des parents ou aux lois reglementant l'utilisation des armes a feu etait considere comme le domaine de recherche prioritaire. Les principales limitations de l'etude etaient les taux de reponse et d'abandon de l'etude par les repondants. Ces taux etalent toutefois comparables a ceux d'exercices similaires de definition de priorites. Conclusion Ces resultats laissent entendre qu'il est premature d'etendre les interventions de prevention de la violence. La priorite de financement devrait porter sur l'elaboration et l'evaluation d'interventions de moindre ampleur. Objetivo Establecer prioridades de investigacion globales para la prevencion de la violencia interpersonal mediante el uso de un enfoque sistematico. Metodos Se identificaron las prioridades de investigacion en un proceso de tres etapas que incluia dos encuestas. En la primera etapa, 95 expertos mundiales en la prevencion de la violencia propusieron preguntas de investigacion para su clasificacion en la segunda etapa. Las preguntas se recopilaron y organizaron segun el enfoque de salud publica de cuatro fases sobre la prevencion de la violencia. En la segunda etapa, 280 expertos internacionales clasificaron la importancia de la Investigacion en cuatro fases, y en distintas subfases, del enfoque de salud publica. En la tercera fase, 131 expertos internacionales clasificaron la importancia de las preguntas de investigacion detalladas sobre la fase de salud publica que, en la segunda fase, se consideraron de mayor prioridad. Resultados En la segunda etapa, la fase de'desarrollo, implementacion y evaluacion de Intervenciones' fue la que se considero de mayor prioridad del enfoque de salud publica para cuatro de los seis tipos de violencia considerados (esto es, maltrato infantil, violencia conyugal, violencia armada y violencia sexual), pero no para la violencia juvenil o el abuso de ancianos. Sin embargo, la fase de 'incremento de las intervenciones y evaluacion de su rentabilidad' obtuvo la menor calificacion de todos los tipos de violencia. En la tercera etapa, la Investigacion sobre la fase de'tiesarrollo, Implementacion y evaluacion de intervenciones' que abordo la paternidad o las leyes para regular el uso de las armas de fuego se considero la de mayor prioridad. Las limitaciones fundamentales del estudio fueron las tasas de respuesta y abandono entre los encuestados. No obstante, dichas tasas concordaron con los ejercicios de prioridad similar. Conclusion Los resultados sugieren que aun es pronto para ampliar las intervenciones para prevenir la violencia. La mayor prioridad deberia ser el desarrollo y la evaluacion de intervenciones a menor escala., Introduction Almost half a million people are victims of homicide every year (1) and one in three women has experienced violence from an intimate partner at some point during her [...]

Background A recent study has shown that close to one in six older adults have experienced elder abuse in a community setting in the past year. It is thought that abuse in institutions is just as prevalent. Few systematic evidence of the scale of the problem exists in elder care facilities. The aim of this review is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the problem in institutional settings and to provide estimates of the prevalence of elder abuse in the past 12 months. Methods Fourteen academic databases and other online platforms were systematically searched for studies on elder abuse. Additionally, 26 experts in the field were consulted to identify further studies. All studies were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted, and meta-analysis was conducted. Self-reported data from older residents and staff were considered separately. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria from an initial of 55 studies identified for review. Overall abuse estimates, based on staff reports, suggest that 64.2% of staff admitted to elder abuse in the past year. There were insufficient studies to calculate an overall prevalence estimate based on self-reported data from older residents. Prevalence estimates for abuse subtypes reported by older residents were highest for psychological abuse (33.4%), followed by physical (14.1%), financial (13.8%), neglect (11.6%), and sexual abuse (1.9%). Conclusions The prevalence of elder abuse in institutions is high. Global action to improve surveillance and monitoring of institutional elder abuse is vital to inform policy action to prevent elder abuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent study has shown that close to one in six older adults have experienced elder abuse in a community setting in the past year. It is thought that abuse in institutions is just as prevalent. Few systematic evidence of the scale of the problem exists in elder care facilities. The aim of this review is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the problem in institutional settings and to provide estimates of the prevalence of elder abuse in the past 12 months., Methods: Fourteen academic databases and other online platforms were systematically searched for studies on elder abuse. Additionally, 26 experts in the field were consulted to identify further studies. All studies were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted, and meta-analysis was conducted. Self-reported data from older residents and staff were considered separately., Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria from an initial of 55 studies identified for review. Overall abuse estimates, based on staff reports, suggest that 64.2% of staff admitted to elder abuse in the past year. There were insufficient studies to calculate an overall prevalence estimate based on self-reported data from older residents. Prevalence estimates for abuse subtypes reported by older residents were highest for psychological abuse (33.4%), followed by physical (14.1%), financial (13.8%), neglect (11.6%), and sexual abuse (1.9%)., Conclusions: The prevalence of elder abuse in institutions is high. Global action to improve surveillance and monitoring of institutional elder abuse is vital to inform policy action to prevent elder abuse.