Responding to Elder Abuse in GERiAtric Care: Educational Intervention (REAGERA edu)

December 13, 2024 updated by: Johanna Simmons, Region Östergötland

Responding to Elder Abuse in GERiAtric Care Educational Intervention for Healthcare Providers: a Non-randomised Stepped Wedge Trial.

The prevalence of elder abuse has been reported between 10-15% in international studies. Elder abuse may include both physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse as well as neglect and it occurs at the hand of both professionals and family members, including adult children and intimate partners. Elder abuse has been associated with psychological ill-health, disability, increased hospitalization, emergency department use and admission to nursing facilities. Elder abuse is however often unknown to health care providers. Older adults are hesitant to disclose abuse and health care providers are often reluctant to ask questions.

In this study an interactive educational model for health care professionals about elder abuse will be tested. The model consist of theoretical lectures, brief films showing patient encounters, group discussions and forum play, a form of participatory theater. Both group discussions and forum play will be using case scenarios as a cornerstone.

The validated questionnaire REAGERA-P will be used for self-reported measures

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Please refer to the uploaded study protocol for a detailed description of the study.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

554

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Eksjö, Sweden
        • Region Jönköpings län
      • Jönköping, Sweden
        • Region Jönköpings län
      • Linköping, Sweden
        • Region Östergötland
      • Norrköping, Sweden
        • Region Östergötland

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Employee at one of the clinics participating in the trial
  • Work tasks involves direct patient contact, at least part time
  • Participation at the training sessions

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Only administrative work and no direct patient contact
  • Not participating at the training session

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Sequential Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Education
Participants that have undergone the educational intervention
Training for health care professionals on how to identify and manage cases of elder abuse among their patients
No Intervention: Waitlist
Participants still waiting to cross over to intervention arm

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change between baseline and follow up concerning asking questions about abuse, as reported in the questionnaire REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Self-report measure of asking older patients about abusive experience. Will be measure both as a dichotomous value (have ever asked questions during the last 6 months) as well as a frequency measure where participants report how often they have asked patients questions about abuse during the last 6 months (on a scale from 0 to 10 or more)
Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change between baseline and follow up concerning awareness of elder abuse and sense of responsibility for identifying victims, as reported in the questionnaire REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, Immediate post-intervention (number 2), 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
  1. Self-reported perceived lack of awareness of elder abuse as a barrier toward identifying victims.
  2. Self reported sense of responsibility for asking questions about abuse (own responsibility, professions' responsibility, health care services responsibility)
Baseline, Immediate post-intervention (number 2), 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Change between baseline and follow up concerning level of awareness of abuse in contact with patients, as reported in the questionnaire REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 or 12 month follow up (different for different clusters)
Patient case ("Vignette") with indicators of abuse and participants self-report if they think they would have asked the patient questions about abuse
Baseline, 6 or 12 month follow up (different for different clusters)
Change between baseline and follow up concerning perceived ability to ask questions about abuse, as reported in REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, Immediate post-intervention, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
  1. Self-reported self-efficacy for asking questions about elder abuse.
  2. Self-reported cause for concern that asking questions will a) lead to a negative reaction from the patient b) negatively impact the patient-provider relationship
Baseline, Immediate post-intervention, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Change between baseline and follow up concerning perceived preparedness to manage cases of elder abuse, as reported in REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, Immediate post-intervention (number 1and 2), 6 months follow up, 12 months follow up
  1. Self-reported self-efficacy for managing cases of elder abuse.
  2. Self-reported cause for concern of not being able to offer the patient a good follow up.
  3. Self-reported collegial support, i.e., knowing which colleague to ask for help if needed when managing cases of elder abuse.
  4. Self-reported knowledge about proper documentation routines
  5. Self-reported knowledge about judicial concerns
Baseline, Immediate post-intervention (number 1and 2), 6 months follow up, 12 months follow up
Change between baseline and follow up concerning preparedness at the clinic to care for older adults subjected to abuse, as reported in REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 months follow up, 12 months follow up

Self-reported evaluation of:

  1. Routines for managing cases of elder abuse at the clinic
  2. Preparedness at the clinic and in society to care for victims of elder abuse.
Baseline, 6 months follow up, 12 months follow up

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change between baseline and follow up concerning number of elder abuse victims identified at the clinics included in the study, as reported in the medical records
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Anonymous data from the medical records counting the number of older patients treated at each clinic that have been identified as victims of abuse during the last 6 months
Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Change between baseline and follow up concerning adequate follow up, as reported in the questionnaire REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Frequency of respondents reporting that identified cases of elder abuse were given adequate follow up
Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Change between baseline and follow up concerning self-reported hesitancy for asking questions about elder abuse, as reported in the questionnaire REAGERA-P
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Frequency of respondents reporting that they have suspected cases of elder abuse but refrained from asking questions
Baseline, 6 month follow up, 12 month follow up
Degree of changed practice as reported in the questionnaire REAGERA-P
Time Frame: 6 month follow up
Frequency of participants self-reporting that they have changed their working practices as a result of the educational intervention
6 month follow up

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Johanna Simmons, MD, PhD, Region Östergötland

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Helpful Links

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 16, 2021

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 18, 2024

Study Completion (Actual)

November 18, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 15, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 28, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

October 4, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 25, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 13, 2024

Last Verified

December 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • RÖ-786

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

There is a plan to make anonymous participant data that underlie results in publications available. However, we are still waiting on final guidelines from the sponsor concerning sharing data and in the unlikely case that the new guidelines prohibit sharing data it will not be shared.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Data will become available alongside publications.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Will be made available from the researcher upon reasonable request or made available from a public depository.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Healthy

Clinical Trials on Education

Subscribe