Aging vulnerability and rural elderly abuse: A socio-geographical appraisal from kalagachhia gram panchayat, khejuri-i cd block, west Bengal

Introduction

Aging is an inevitable stage of the human life cycle, yet it remains one of the most neglected dimensions of social and developmental discourse in the Global South. In India, the elderly population (60 years and above) has been steadily increasing due to declining fertility rates, improved life expectancy, and demographic transition. According to Census 2011, nearly 8.6% of India's population was elderly, with projections suggesting a sharp rise to over 19% by 2050. This demographic shift is not merely a numerical phenomenon but is deeply embedded in social, economic, and geographical contexts. The situation is especially critical in rural India, where nearly 70% of the elderly reside, often facing precarious livelihoods, poor healthcare accessibility, and weakening traditional support systems. In West Bengal, one of the most densely populated states of India, the rural elderly constitutes a vulnerable group, particularly in socio-economically fragile districts such as Purba Medinipur. Here, traditional agrarian livelihoods are undergoing transformation due to land-use change, out-migration of the younger workforce, and the decline of customary family care. Such transitions amplify aging vulnerability, manifesting in neglect, dependency, and in extreme cases, elder abuse. Abuse may take multiple forms physical harm, emotional neglect, financial exploitation, or social exclusion all of which erode the dignity and quality of life of older persons. The Khejuri-I CD Block in Purba Medinipur, where Kalagachhia Gram Panchayat is located, offers a poignant site for such inquiry. This rural setting, characterized by a fluvio-coastal landscape, has witnessed significant socio-economic transformations in recent decades. Migration to urban and overseas destinations, occupational diversification, and changes in household structures have created gaps in intergenerational bonding. Consequently, elderly individuals are increasingly marginalized in decision-making, care, and community life. From a geographical perspective, aging is not only a biological or social process but also a common, and underscores links between abuse and adverse mental-health outcomes such as depression and reduced wellbeing (Yon et al., 2017; Mawar et al., 2018) [53,32] . In the Indian context, a growing body of empirical studies and reviews documents high and variable prevalence of elder mistreatment and identifies multiple structural and proximate drivers. National and multi-site reviews report prevalence ranges that reflect methodological heterogeneity -Indian estimates vary widely (single studies report ranges from under 10% to over 40%), with psychological abuse and neglect frequently reported (Chandanshive et al., 2022; Maurya, 2022) [7,31] . Large-scale analyses point to important predictors: functional limitations/disability, female gender, poverty, living in nuclear households, multimorbidity, dependency for daily living, and social isolation are consistently associated with higher risk of abuse (Sathya et al., 2020; Nemati-Vakilabad et al., 2023) [45,38] . Rural settings in India show both commonalities and distinct features relative to urban contexts. Several communitybased studies from rural India including multiple studies from West Bengal -note under-reporting driven by stigma, normalization of mistreatment, and limited access to grievance mechanisms, but also indicate that rural community networks and neighborhood cohesion can sometimes act protectively (Chang et al., 2020; Chandanshive et al., 2022) [8,7] . Importantly, functional disability and dependence increase vulnerability in rural populations, especially where health-care access and social protection are weak (Sathya et al., 2020) [45] . Recent empirical work in West Bengal highlights intra-regional variation: tribal vs non-tribal differences, gendered patterns, and the interaction of functional impairment with social status in shaping abuse risk (Jana, 2025) [21] . Human-geographical and socio-spatial scholarship argues that aging and elder abuse must be read as place-sensitive phenomena. Geographical lenses locate vulnerability within spatial structures -settlement patterns, mobility constraints, service accessibility, migration-induced family fragmentation, and the morphology of households and community institutions all shape lived experience of aging (Ricoy-Cano et al., 2024; Research on ageing widows in rural Bengal; Chang et al., 2020) [43,8] . This sociogeographical framing underscores that abuse is not only interpersonal but is produced and mediated by wider sociospatial processes (out-migration of younger cohorts, changing livelihoods, and declining informal safety nets). Despite this expanding literature, important gaps remain that are directly relevant to the Kalagachhia case. First, studies frequently adopt clinical, epidemiological, or gerontological frames and pay limited attention to the spatial distribution and place-specific production of vulnerability. Second, there is a shortage of mixed-method, small-area sociogeographical case studies that combine household survey data, qualitative narratives, and spatial mapping to link individual experiences with neighborhood and landscape characteristics. Third, localized evidence from peripheral fluvio-coastal gram panchayats (such as Khejuri-I) where livelihood shifts and out-migration are pronounced is sparse. Filling these gaps would sharpen both theoretical understanding and policy responses, enabling targeted, place-sensitive interventions to reduce aging vulnerability and elder abuse in rural Bengal. To analyze the socio-economic and demographic profile of the elderly population in Kalagachhia Gram Panchayat under Khejuri-I Block. 2. To identify and examine the forms, patterns, and underlying causes of elderly abuse and neglect in the study area. 3. To assess the spatial and social dimensions of aging vulnerability in the rural context of Purba Medinipur. 4. To suggest policy recommendations and communitybased measures for reducing elderly vulnerability and abuse.

Location of the Study Area

Materials, Methods and Methodology

The study adopts a socio-geographical case study approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods to capture the complexity of aging vulnerability and elderly abuse in Kalagachhia Gram Panchayat, Khejuri-I CD Block, Purba Medinipur.

Data Collection

A. Primary Data

• A structured household survey was conducted among elderly individuals (aged 60 and above), with purposive sampling to ensure gender and socio-economic representation. Exclusion from family/community decisions, isolation from cultural activities Binary / Likert  Index Principle Assign scores to each abuse type (e.g., Yes = 1, No = 0; Likert 1-5). Normalize across abuse dimensions (0-1 scale).

 Aggregate abuse scores

Equal weights unless severity weights are assigned (e.g., physical = higher weight) Categorization: No Abuse = 0; Mild Abuse = 0.01-0.33; Moderate Abuse = 0.34-0.66 & Severe Abuse = 0.67-1.00 Source: Author's Composition

Ethical Considerations

• Given the sensitive nature of the topic, anonymity and confidentiality of respondents were strictly maintained, and informed consent was obtained before each interview. • This mixed-methods design provides a comprehensive understanding of how aging vulnerability is constructed and manifested in rural Bengal. Source: Field Survey, 2022-2024

Result and Discussion

Demographic and Social Profile

The elderly population surveyed (N=249) shows a nearly balanced sex ratio (50.6% male, 49.4% female), with the largest cohorts in the 65-70 years (21.7%) and 60-65 years (20.9%) brackets. This reflects a growing concentration of the "younger-old," who may still be economically active but increasingly vulnerable to dependency. A significant proportion live in extended households, yet 4.4% live alone and 1.6% in old-age homes, underlining early signs of family disintegration in rural Bengal.

Caste and religious distribution reveal a Hindu majority (78.3%), followed by Muslims (18.5%). The presence of marginalized caste groups likely compounds socioeconomic vulnerability The socio-economic status of elderly households is anchored in low to middle-income rural livelihoods, with agriculture (16.9%), aquaculture (8.4%), livestock farming (3.6%), and daily labour (30.5%) dominating the economic base. Daily wage labour represents the largest single category, suggesting precarious and irregular earnings. Business and trade account for 13.3%, while salaried government (11.2%) and non-government service (8.8%) are relatively small proportions. Gender differences are modest, but women are slightly more concentrated in casual labour and unpaid occupations. This occupational profile reflects dependency on primary and vulnerable sectors, prone to shocks (climate, price fluctuations, or health crises), thereby amplifying elderly insecurity. Patterns of past engagement reveal gendered trajectories: men largely engaged in daily labour (18.1%) and agriculture (12.5%), while women were overwhelmingly concentrated in household/unpaid domestic work (25.3%). Only 4.8% of men and 1.2% of women were in government service. These figures highlight the life-course roots of vulnerability: lack of formal-sector employment leads to limited pension coverage, and the unpaid domestic labour of elderly women translate into lifetime economic dependence, leaving them more exposed to neglect and abuse. This heavy reliance on government schemes reveals the critical role of welfare transfers, but also exposes fragility if such schemes are irregular or insufficient. The modal income group is <₹3000/month (≈50.6%), inadequate to cover basic health and nutritional needs. Women are overrepresented in the lowest categories (<₹1500 and 1500-3000), pointing to feminized economic vulnerability This indicates a transition away from intergenerational support towards state-based support, but with structural insecurity due to limited coverage and small benefit amounts. These perceptions align with low AVI (Aging Vulnerability Index) economic dimensions and are strongly correlated with elder abuse risks, since economic dependence is a critical driver of neglect and maltreatment. The health status of the elderly is worrying. Only 0.8% report very good health and 8.4% good health, while the majority fall into average (29.7%), poor (35.7%), and very poor (14.9%) categories. Nearly 9.2% describe themselves as "mostly deprived/deteriorated." Poor health disproportionately affects women (27% vs 23% in men for very poor/deprived). These findings show that ill-health and frailty dominate the lived experience of aging, reinforcing their dependence on caregivers. Disabilities are widespread and often multiple:

Previous Occupations of the Elderly

Sources of Income of the Elderly

Income Levels of the Elderly

Financial Dependence of the Elderly

Financial Satisfaction and Security

Education Status

Current Health Condition

Disability Patterns

• Senility/amnesia (64.7%),

• Other disabilities (46.2%).

Women consistently report higher disability prevalence than men, showing a gendered health burden. The clustering of disabilities suggests that many elders face multi-morbidity, making them more reliant on family support and exposing them to higher risks of neglect and abuse. These patterns show limited access to stable income or pensions, with most elderly surviving on subsistence-level spending. Women's expenditures tend to be lower, reflecting both gender inequality in resource access and higher dependency. This fragile economic base reinforces economic vulnerability, which earlier results (Table 27) identified as the primary cause of abuse.

Major Problems Faced

Elderly respondents report a range of overlapping problems, confirming the multi-dimensionality of vulnerability:

• Health problems dominate (91.9%), followed by • Neglect in family decision-making (82.3%),

• Economic hardship (69.1%), and • Psychological distress (64.7%).

• Social alienation is also significant: 53.8% report distancing from younger generations, while 56.6% directly report elder abuse. Alarmingly, 69.9% say they face "most of the above problems" simultaneously, suggesting that vulnerabilities intersect rather than operate in isolation.

Gender disparities are again clear: women face higher neglect (96.7%), elder abuse (66.7%), and avoidance by younger generations (67.5%) than men. This cements the argument that elderly women are the most marginalized and silenced group, bearing the brunt of both structural poverty and household neglect. The data reveal that elderly abuse is largely reported indirectly or in secrecy, with only 20.9% freely reporting. A majority (42.6%) rely on secret reporting, while 18.1% report with fear. Female respondents are more likely to report secretly or with fear, highlighting the gendered silence surrounding abuse. Only 2% did not report and 1.2% were uncertain, indicating that abuse is under-reported due to fear of retaliation, dependency, and family stigma.

Types, Causes and Impacts of Elderly Abuse in the Study Area: 7.3.1 Patterns of Reporting Abuse

Types of Abuse

Elderly abuse is multi-dimensional and systemic. The most prevalent forms include:

• Neglect in decision-making (82.3%) -stripping elders of agency. • Verbal abuse (71.1%) -normalized psychological harm.

• Carelessness in physical/mental well-being (61.9%).

• Generation conflict (63%) and compulsion to work (52.2%) -showing intergenerational tensions. Female elders consistently reported higher abuse rates, reflecting double marginalization through both age and gender. Abuse is overwhelmingly intra-household • Daughters-in-law (59.8%) and sons (50.2%) are the principal perpetrators. • Daughters (26.1%), sons-in-law (22.5%), and even grandchildren (33.3%) are also significant contributors.

Perpetrators of Abuse

This indicates a breakdown of traditional caregiving norms, where close kin-once the support system is now the key abusers. This confirms that abuse is structural, normalized, and interwoven into family life rather than occasional. This confirms that dependency, longevity, and sociocultural transition are the root causes. The driving factors reinforce structural and relational conflict:

Duration and Frequency of Elderly Abuse

Crimes against the Elderly

Causes of Abuse

Driving Factors

• Socio-economic chaos and family conflicts (60.7% very high/high). • Maladjustment with daughters-in-law/sons (61.5%).

• Non-tolerance of chronic disease (61.5%).

• Property disputes (54.2%) and the perception of elders as a "burden" (47.8%). Thus, abuse emerges from a toxic mix of economic stress, maladjustment, and cultural erosion. The reluctance to report is tied to fear of losing family support, social stigma, and lack of trust in legal institutions.

Reasons for Non-Reporting

Elderly women, in particular, suppress disclosure due to economic dependency and patriarchal pressure.

Impacts on Elderly

Abuse has severe individual consequences • 95% experience stress, anxiety, fear, and depression.

• 91% report loneliness and isolation, while 61% admit suicidal tendencies. • Physical health deteriorates in 65.9%, and many feels supports less and spiritless (75.9%).

The findings highlight psychosocial breakdown alongside physical suffering. The results establish that elderly abuse in Kalagachhia is widespread, gendered, systemic, and long-term. Women, the disabled, and economically dependent elders are the most vulnerable. Abuse originates within households, sustained by economic stress, intergenerational conflict, and cultural change, and has devastating effects on both individual wellbeing and community cohesion. Only 15.7% of elderly respondents reported availing healthcare benefits under government-sponsored programs, with another 31.3% partially availing. Nearly half (48.6%) reported no access. This already limited coverage is further undermined by dissatisfaction: a combined 56.6% rated services as poor or very poor, while only 15.6% rated them as good or better. The mismatch between scheme availability and effective access reflects institutional exclusion, bureaucratic barriers, and rural infrastructural gaps, intensifying health-related vulnerabilities. Awareness levels are low 49% of elderly had no knowledge of dedicated healthcare facilities, and only 18.9% were fully aware. Male respondents showed slightly better awareness, but women lagged significantly, indicating gendered information gaps. This lack of awareness is itself a form of structural vulnerability, restricting elderly capacity to demand entitlements. Both tests confirm that as aging vulnerability increases, the likelihood and intensity of elder abuse also rise significantly. The statistical correlation between the Aging Vulnerability Index (AVI) and Elder Abuse Index (EAI) underscores the interdependent nature of aging precarity and abuse in rural Kalagachhia. Both Pearson's correlation (r = 0.803, p<0.001) and Spearman's correlation (r = 0.789, p<0.001) demonstrate a strong, positive, and statistically significant association, confirming that elderly individuals with higher vulnerability scores are also more likely to experience moderate to severe abuse. This relationship validates the descriptive findings, where economic dependency, poor health, social exclusion, and disability were identified as the main drivers of abuse. The scatter plot with regression trend further illustrates how vulnerability directly escalates the intensity of abuse. These results suggest that elder abuse in rural Bengal cannot be understood in isolation but must be seen as an outcome of structural vulnerabilities embedded within household arrangements, livelihood insecurity, and declining support systems, thereby reinforcing the socio-geographical appraisal framework of the study.

Impacts on Society

Management of Elderly Abuse 7.4.1 Availing and Satisfaction with Government Healthcare

Awareness of Dedicated Healthcare Facilities

Skill Training and Engagement Opportunities

Awareness of Redress Mechanisms

Major Findings

Conclusion

The study on Aging Vulnerability and Elder Abuse in Rural Bengal exposes a deeply unsettling reality: our elders, once the pillars of family and society, are increasingly trapped in webs of neglect, dependency, and silent suffering. The findings demonstrate that elder abuse is not merely an individual or familial crisis but a societal malaise rooted in economic precarity, declining intergenerational bonds, and weak institutional safeguards. The high prevalence of verbal abuse, neglect in decision-making, and mental harassment highlights how social ethos has shifted from reverence to disregard, leaving the elderly vulnerable within their very homes.

Yet, this crisis is not irreversible. Ensuring dignity, security, and respect for the aged requires a three-tier response: empowering individuals through resilience and health care, sensitizing families to value their elders as co-decision makers, and strengthening state interventions in pensions, healthcare, legal protection, and shelter. If India aspires to inclusive growth and social justice, it cannot afford to leave behind its aging population. The moral test of any society lies in how it treats its most vulnerable. Protecting the elderly is not charity it is justice, gratitude, and duty. A nation that safeguards its elders safeguards its cultural soul.

References

1. Bali AP. The role of the family in elderly care. Help Age India R&D J. 1995;2(1):1-10.
2. Basu DD. Shorter Constitution of India. 11th ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India; 1989. p. 1-780.
3. Bhatia HS. Ageing and society: A sociological study of retired public servants. Udaipur: Arya's Book Centre; 1983. p. 1-250.
4. Bose A. Concern for the aging population. Presented at: International Conference of Aging in Asia; 1982; Santo Tomas, Manila.
5. Bose A. Population of India: 2001 census results and methodology. New Delhi: Government of India; 2011. p. 1-200.
6. Bose AB. Care of the elderly in the unorganized sector. Help Age India R&D J. 1996;1(3):25-35.
7. Chandanshive P, Patil P, Suryavanshi A, Jadhav R, Kumbhar A, Shinde V, et al. Prevalence patterns and associated factors of elder abuse in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:536. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-02986-9
8. Chang ES, Levy BR, Lee JE, Stein M, Feder A, Schafer MH, et al. Protective effects of neighborhood community factors on elder abuse: evidence and mechanisms. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0228130. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79046
9. Singh C. Ageing population in India: selected economic issues. Bangalore: IIM Bangalore; 2013. p. 1-120.
10. Clark BS. Housing for rural elders. In: Bull CN, Bane SD, editors. The future of ageing in rural America: proceedings of a national symposium. Kansas City: National Resource Centre for Rural Elderly; 1991. p. 45-62.
11. Coward RT, Lee GR. The elderly in rural society. New York: Springer; 1985. p. 1-300.
12. Coward RT, Bull CN, Kulkulka G, Galliher JA, editors. Health services for rural elderly. New York: Springer; 1993. p. 1-280.
13. Desai KG. Situation of the aged in India. J Indian Anthropol Soc. 1985;20(3):215-223.
14. Dubey A, Bhasin S, Gupta N, Sharma N. A study of elderly living in old age home and within family set-up in Jammu. Stud Home Community Sci. 2011;5(2):9398.
15. Govil P, Gupta S. Domestic violence against elderly people: a case study of India. Adv Aging Res. 2016;5(5):110-121. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aar.2016.55011
16. HelpAge India. Elder abuse in India. New Delhi: HelpAge India; 2013. http://www.helpageindiaprogramme.org/index.aspx
17. HelpAge India. Elder abuse in India. New Delhi: HelpAge India; 2014.
18. HelpAge India. A youth perspective on elder abuse: the Indian youth speaks out. New Delhi: HelpAge India; 2015.
19. Hemavathi U, Rani BS. Problems faced by elderly: a comparative study of institutionalized and noninstitutionalized. Int J Sci Res. 2014;3(12):1540-1545.
20. Jamuna D, Ramamurti PV. Frontiers of ageing. In: Gokhale SD, et al, editors. Ageing in India. Bombay: Somaiya Publications; 1999. p. 45-70.
21. Jana S. Elder abuse in rural India: uncovering the interplay between functional impairment and ethnicity (study on West Bengal). ResGate/PubMed; 2025.
22. Kapur R. Problems of the aged people in India. ResearchGate. 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325144978
23. Kumar ST. A study on challenges of the elderly in India. Int J Multidiscip Educ Res. 2020;5(16):135-137.
24. Kumar V. Ageing in India: an overview. Indian J Med Res. 1997;106:257-264.
25. Kumar VS. Old age: a challenge of life. J Indian Anthropol Soc. 1990;16(3-4):201-209.
26. Kumar VS. Rural elderly: health status and available health services. Help Age India R&D J. 1996;2(3):4052.
27. Kumar Y, Bhargava A. Elder abuse in Indian families: problems and preventive actions. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2014;4(10):1-8.
28. Dandekar K. The elderly in India. New Delhi: Vedams eBooks; 1996. p. 1-220.
29. Ministry of Law and Justice. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. New Delhi: Government of India; 2007.
30. Mane B. Ageing in India: some social challenges to elderly care. J Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2016;5(2):1-4. Available from: https://www.omicsonline.org/openaccess/ageing-in-india-some-social-challenges-toelderly-care-2167-7182-1000e136.pdf
31. Maurya P. Understanding elder abuse in India: contributing factors and policy suggestions. IIPS Working Paper. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences; 2022. p. 1-35. Available from: https://www.iipsindia.ac.in/sites/default/files/other_files /57_Understanding_Elder_Abusein_India_Contributing _Factors_JOPA.pdf
32. Mawar S, Chatterjee P, Ghosh A, Paul A, Sinha R, Banerjee D, et al. Association of physical problems and depression with elder abuse. Indian J Psychiatry. 2018;60(4):482-487. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61664
33. Mishra AJ, Patel AB. Crimes against the elderly in India: a content analysis on factors causing fear of crime. Int J Crim Justice Sci. 2013;8(1):13-23.
34. Amiri MM. Problems faced by old age people. Int J Indian Psychol. 2018;6(2):59-67. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326785466
35. Mohapatra T. Caring of the elderly: an empirical study from rural Odisha. Ageing Soc Indian J Gerontol. 2012;22(3-4):201-215.
36. National Crime Records Bureau. Crime in India. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; 2014. http://ncrb.gov.in
37. Nayar PKB. The study of the old-old and oldest old. New Delhi: Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India; 1998. p. 1-60.
38. Nemati-Vakilabad R, Hosseini SR, Esmaeili R, Bijani A, Sharifi F, Mohebi SR, et al. The prevalence of elder abuse and risk factors. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23:440. https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s 12877-023-04307-0
39. Prakash IJ. Impact of out migration of the young on older people. Help Age India R&D J. 2003;9(1):10-18.
40. Rajan SI, Mishra US, Sarma PS. India's elderly: burden or challenge? New Delhi: Sage Publications; 1999. p. 1220.
41. Raju SS. Health status of the urban elderly: a medicosocial study. Delhi: BR Publishing Corporation; 2002. p. 1-150.
42. Rao PV. Ageing in rural society. ICSSR Res Abstr Q. 1994;23(2):112-118.
43. Ricoy-Cano AJ, Rodríguez-Laso A, Abellán A, Puga D, Prados-Torres A, Serrano-Sánchez JL, et al. Violence, abuse and neglect in older women in rural and remote areas: systematic review. J Women Aging. 2024;36(1):45-59.
44. Sarfraz SF, Riaz S. Problems faced by senior citizens in contemporary society: findings from the household survey in Karachi, Pakistan. Int J Res Humanit Soc Stud. 2015;2(11):13-22.
45. Sathya T, Subramanian M, Joseph B, Venkatesan K, Chidambaram R, Padmanabhan A, et al. Association of functional limitations and disability with elder mistreatment in India. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20:389. https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s 12877-020-01619-3
46. Sharma SD, Agarwal S. Ageing: the Indian perspective. In: Kumar V, editor. Aging: Indian perspective and global scenario. New Delhi: All India Institute of Medical Sciences; 1996. p. 15-32.
47. Singh C. Ageing population in India: select economic issues. Bangalore: IIM Bangalore; 2013. p. 1-80. http://iimb.ac.in/research/sites/default/files/WP%20No. %20442.pdf
48. Singh KP. Social work with the elderly: a rural study. Int J Soc Work Human Serv Pract. 2014;2(6):244-249.
49. Singh K, Singh R, Sharma ML. Problems of aged women in Haryana. In: Sharma ML, Dak TM, editors. Aging in India. New Delhi: Ajanta Publications; 1987. p. 100-115.
50. Singh R. Social conditions of elderly and problems. J Res Humanit Soc Sci. 2015;3(3):25-34. Available from: http://www.questjournals.org/jrhss/papers/vol3issue3/I335254.pdf
51. The Times of India. Provision for parents to claim monthly maintenance. Aligarh: The Times Group; 2014 Jun 15. p. 8.
52. The Times of India. Delhi most uncaring towards elderly among metros: survey. Aligarh: The Times Group; 2015 Jun 17. p. 8.
53. Yon Y, Mikton CR, Gassoumis ZD, Wilber KH. The prevalence of elder abuse in community settings: a systematic review. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(2):e147-e156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221 4109X17300062