The Prevalence of Self-Reported Elder Abuse Among Older Women in Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongjie Yon ◽  
Christopher Mikton ◽  
Zachary D. Gassoumis ◽  
Kathleen H. Wilber

The abuse of older women appears to be a significant problem. Developing a better understanding of the extent of the problem is an important step toward preventing it. We conducted a global systematic review and meta-analysis of existing prevalence studies, in multiple languages, that occurred in the community settings from inception to June 26, 2015, in order to determine the extent of abuse against women aged 60 years and over. To disentangle the wide variations in prevalence estimates, we also investigated the associations between prevalence estimates and studies’ demographic and methodological characteristics. A total of 50 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The combined prevalence for overall elder abuse in the past year was 14.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) [11.0, 18.0]). Pooled prevalence for psychological abuse was 11.8% (95% CI [9.2%, 14.9%]), neglect was 4.1% (95% CI [2.7%, 6.3%]), financial abuse was 3.8% (95% CI [2.5%, 5.5%]), sexual abuse was 2.2% (95% CI [1.6%, 3.0%]), and physical abuse was 1.9% (95% CI [1.2%, 3.1%]). The studies included in the meta-analysis for overall abuse were heterogeneous indicating that significant differences among the prevalence estimates exist. Significant associations were found between prevalence estimates and the following covariates: World Health Organization–defined regions, countries’ income classification, and sample size. Together, these covariates explained 37% of the variance. Although robust prevalence studies are sparse in low- and middle-income countries, about 1 in 6, or 68 million older women experience abuse worldwide. More work is needed to understand the variation in prevalence rates and implications for prevention.

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-262
Author(s):  
Sedigheh Abdollahpour ◽  
Hamid Heidarian Miri ◽  
Talat Khadivzadeh

Background: Improving the maternal health is one of the world’s most challenging problems. Despite significant movements over the past decades, maternal health has been still considered as a central goal for sustainable development. Maternal near miss (MNM) cases experience long-term physical and psychological effects. To present a clear portrait of the current situation, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the purpose to assess the worldwide prevalence of MNM. Methods: We conducted a systematic review on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases to find published papers in English, before March 2019 and regardless of the type of study. We, then, assessed the prevalence of MNM according to the World Health Organization(WHO) criteria. Finally, 49 papers were included in the study. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the available prevalence. The quality of studies was also evaluated. Results: The weighted pooled worldwide prevalence of MNM, was 18.67/1000 (95% CI: 16.28-21.06). Heterogeneity was explored using subgroup analyses based on the continent and the country. We used meta-regression of MNM on MD which resulted in adjusted R-squared as78.88%. Conclusion: The prevalence of MNM was considerable. Low- and middle-income countries should develop systematic approaches to improve quality of care in the facilities and to reducethe risk of MNM events, with the hope to women’s health.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.


BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n526
Author(s):  
François Lamontagne ◽  
Thomas Agoritsas ◽  
Reed Siemieniuk ◽  
Bram Rochwerg ◽  
Jessica Bartoszko ◽  
...  

Abstract Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter? There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. Recommendation The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. Readers note This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.


Author(s):  
Yongjie Yon ◽  
Christopher Mikton ◽  
Zachary D. Gassoumis ◽  
Kathleen H. Wilber

RÉSUMÉLa maltraitance des personnes âgées est un important problème de santé publique et de droits de l’homme. Néanmoins, notre connaissance de la veritable ampleur du phénomène demeure limitée. Pour y remédier, nous allons procéder à une revue systématique et une méta-analyse des études de prevalence de la maltraitance des personnes âgées dans le monde entier. Ce protocole décrit l’approche méthodologique qui sera adoptée pour la réalisation de la revue systématique et de la méta-analyse. En particulier, le protocole décrit le développement des stratégies de recherche et des critères pour identifier et sélectionner les études de prévalence ainsi que la façon dont les données des études sélectionnées seront extraites pour l’analyse. Le protocole décrit également l’approche analytique qui sera utilisée pour calculer les estimations de prevalence et l’utilisation de méta-régression pour évaluer la façon dont les caractéristiques des études influencent les estimations de la prévalence. Ce protocole est conforme au “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis” – ou PRISMA – et a été enregistré auprès du registre de revues systématique PROSPERO International Prospective Register.


Author(s):  
Afsaneh Noormandi ◽  
Mohammad Fathalipour ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour

Background and objective: COVID-19 has since been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), infecting millions worldwide. The use of Interferon (INF) subtypes previously examined in the treatment of SARS and MERS is also being initiated in some clinical trials. Although different clinical trials were evaluated IFNs in the treatment of COVID-19, their efficacy and safety remain unknown. Therefore, this study aims to systematically assess IFNs efficacy and safety in treating patients with COVID-19. Methods: The protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register (CRD42020200643) on 24 July 2020. This protocol has been arranged according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist. Discussion: Due to lack of approved medication for the covid-19 treatment and also various mutations of this virus, evaluated the efficacy and safety of medications by various studies could help for finding treatments with high effectiveness. IFNs are one of the medications that have been administered in covid-19 infection.  Moreover, the best time of administration and dose of this medication was unknown. Although meta-analysis is a potent source for assessing the accuracy of subjects, heterogeneity of articles is a potent limitation of our work.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1900655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Cohen ◽  
Victor Dahl Mathiasen ◽  
Thomas Schön ◽  
Christian Wejse

In 1999, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that one-third of the world's population had latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), which was recently updated to one-fourth. However, this is still based on controversial assumptions in combination with tuberculin skin test (TST) surveys. Interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) with a higher specificity than TST have since been widely implemented, but never used to estimate the global LTBI prevalence.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of LTBI estimates based on both IGRA and TST results published between 2005 and 2018. Regional and global estimates of LTBI prevalence were calculated. Stratification was performed for low, intermediate and high TB incidence countries and a pooled estimate for each area was calculated using a random effects model.Among 3280 studies screened, we included 88 studies from 36 countries with 41 IGRA (n=67 167) and 67 TST estimates (n=284 644). The global prevalence of LTBI was 24.8% (95% CI 19.7–30.0%) and 21.2% (95% CI 17.9–24.4%), based on IGRA and a 10-mm TST cut-off, respectively. The prevalence estimates correlated well to WHO incidence rates (Rs=0.70, p<0.001).In the first study of the global prevalence of LTBI derived from both IGRA and TST surveys, we found that one-fourth of the world's population is infected. This is of relevance, as both tests, although imperfect, are used to identify individuals eligible for preventive therapy. Enhanced efforts are needed targeting the large pool of latently infected individuals, as this constitutes an enormous source of potential active tuberculosis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice Batomen ◽  
Lynne Moore ◽  
Mabel Carabali ◽  
Pier-Alexandre Tardif ◽  
Howard Champion ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. Methods We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. Discussion This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018107083.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document