An Evaluation of AoA's Program to Prevent Elder Abuse: Final Report. NOTES

08/01/2016

  1. AK DSDS was unable to collect data on caregivers.

  2. While the framework for dissemination and implementation was not a focus of the evaluation, AoA required that each grantee develop and implement plans for dissemination of prevention intervention activities and findings.

  3. See https://www.criticaltime.org/about-us/.

  4. CTI is included in the HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices: http://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=367.

  5. Greater detail is provided in the Evaluation of AoA's Elder Abuse Prevention Intervention Demonstrations Research Briefs accessible at http://www.aoa.acl.gov/AoA_Programs/Elder_Rights/EA_Prevention/Demonstration/.

  6. This evaluation did not address training clinicians on screening and identification of elder abuse or the Stress Busting program.

  7. As defined by the Institute of Medicine (2001:6), patient-centered care refers to "providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions."

  8. Education data were not available for TX/WellMed.

  9. Data was not provided on the income source (i.e., earned, unearned). Income data were not available for TX/WellMed.

  10. Data was not available from USC on this variable.

  11. Many of the elders served by TX/WellMed were self-neglecting, therefore 66 percent of the perpetrators were identified as "self."

  12. For data presented on type of abuse/allegation, we only included those individuals for whom information was available. For this reason, the sample size decreases for many of the interventions in Table 7 and Table 8. As discussed earlier, three of the interventions (AK DSDS, NYSOFA and TX/WellMed) focused on at-risk elders and victims. While elders may be identified as at-risk, we do not always know the particular type(s) of abuse for which they are identified, only that they are vulnerable. In the case of AK DSDS, we have included only those participants whose alleged abuse has been substantiated in our calculations. For NYSOFA, data on type of abuse were available for 182 cases. For TX/WellMed, data on allegations were provided by TX DFPS.

  13. USC focused on care recipients, not victims. For this reason, data on types of abuse do not apply to USC's intervention.

  14. Given the heterogeneity of the data and limited sample sizes, we were not able to conduct subgroup analyses that would have tested for differences in the type of abuse by demographic characteristics, psychological and physical health conditions, and degree of social support.

  15. Across the five grantees, information on the duration of the intervention was not available for all cases served, thus these findings represent a sub-sample of elders served.

  16. The timeframe captured by grantees on this measure varied. For AK DSDS, data on APS referral was collected at three months and six months following the termination of interventions for these projects. Collecting information at these two time points helps to understand whether the interventions' effects are sustainable beyond the end of the formal intervention period. For UTHSC, 32.4 percent of victims were referred subsequently to APS. Their re-referrals spanned anywhere between one month post-intervention to one year post-intervention. Additionally, 14.3 percent of victims were re-referred to APS after their first re-referral. The second subsequent referral spanned 1-14 months from the first subsequent referral.

  17. The reason for the re-referral was not provided.

  18. The E-MDT operating in Manhattan did not assess level of risk.

  19. HHS Administration on Aging. PPHF--2012--Elder Abuse Prevention Interventions Program. Program Announcement and Grant Application Instructions, FY 2012.