IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v13y2024i8p419-d1453266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neglect in Older Adults: A Sociodemographic and Health Approach in the Portuguese Context

Author

Listed:
  • Joana Correia Jesus

    (William James Center for Research (WJCR), ISPA—Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas Sociais e da Vida, 1149-041 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Sofia von Humboldt

    (William James Center for Research (WJCR), ISPA—Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas Sociais e da Vida, 1149-041 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Luisa Soares

    (Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Univeristy of Madeira, 9000-072 Funchal, Portugal)

  • Isabel Leal

    (William James Center for Research (WJCR), ISPA—Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas Sociais e da Vida, 1149-041 Lisboa, Portugal)

Abstract

Southern European countries have shown indicators of accelerated aging. In Portugal, a particularly worrying aspect of this reality lies in the relationship between the aging process and the incidence of violence in older adults, as the degree of dependence and/or health status becomes a significant risk factor for the occurrence of violence. The objectives of the present study were (1) to assess the risk of violence and indicators of neglect in Portuguese older adults; (2) to examine the differences in neglect indicators according to sociodemographic characteristics and health habits. The final sample consisted of 1012 Portuguese older adults aged 65 or over. Participants were asked about sociodemographic characteristics and health habits. The risk of violence was measured using the Vulnerability to Abuse Screening Scale, and the neglect subscale of the Elder Abuse: A Multinational Prevalence Survey was used to evaluate indicators of exposure to neglect in the past year. The results show that approximately 27% of the population presents values of risk to violence. One-tenth of participants were exposed to low levels of neglect indicators and slightly fewer people (5%) were exposed to higher levels of neglect indicators. There are significant differences regarding exposure to neglect according to the age groups, gender, and marital status, depending on the living situation, years of retirement, practice of physical exercise, existence of chronic disease, alcohol consumption, and frequency of leaving home.

Suggested Citation

  • Joana Correia Jesus & Sofia von Humboldt & Luisa Soares & Isabel Leal, 2024. "Neglect in Older Adults: A Sociodemographic and Health Approach in the Portuguese Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:419-:d:1453266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/8/419/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/8/419/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandra Baez & Daniel Flichtentrei & María Prats & Ricardo Mastandueno & Adolfo M García & Marcelo Cetkovich & Agustín Ibáñez, 2017. "Men, women…who cares? A population-based study on sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aleena Amir, 2024. "Mapping Femvertising Research: A PRISMA Driven Systematic Review of Literature," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 13(2), pages 663-670.
    2. Shilong Wei & Muhammad Safdar Sial & Wenxia Zhou & Alina Badulescu & Daniel Badulescu, 2021. "Improving the Environmental Footprint through Employees: A Case of Female Leaders from the Perspective of CSR," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Justin A. Charles & Peder Ahnfeldt-Mollerup & Jens Søndergaard & Troels Kristensen, 2018. "Empathy Variation in General Practice: A Survey among General Practitioners in Denmark," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Wolfgang Habla & Mitesh Kataria & Peter Martinsson & Kerstin Roeder, 2024. "Should it stay, or swerve? Trading off lives in dilemma situations involving autonomous cars," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 929-951, May.
    5. Lucas Murrins Marques & Scott Clifford & Vijeth Iyengar & Graziela Vieira Bonato & Patrícia Moraes Cabral & Rafaela Barreto dos Santos & Roberto Cabeza & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Paulo Sérgio Bogg, 2020. "Translation and validation of the Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFVs) for the Portuguese language in a Brazilian sample," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 149-158, January.
    6. Hoon S. Choi & Michele Maasberg, 2022. "An empirical analysis of experienced reviewers in online communities: what, how, and why to review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1293-1310, September.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:149-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Hernando Santamaría-García & Miguel Burgaleta & Agustina Legaz & Daniel Flichtentrei & Mateo Córdoba-Delgado & Juliana Molina-Paredes & Juliana Linares-Puerta & Juan Montealegre-Gómez & Sandra Castelb, 2022. "The price of prosociality in pandemic times," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Kari L. J. Goold & Reynafe N. Aniga & Peter B. Gray, 2020. "Sports under Quarantine: A Case Study of Major League Baseball in 2020," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Alexia Barrable & David Booth, 2020. "Nature Connection in Early Childhood: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Andrew Sommerlad & Jonathan Huntley & Gill Livingston & Katherine P Rankin & Daisy Fancourt, 2021. "Empathy and its associations with age and sociodemographic characteristics in a large UK population sample," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:419-:d:1453266. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.