Identification of priorities for multidisciplinary intersectoral research on violence against older women

Figures & data

Table 1 Participant characteristics of Delphi consensus survey Round 1 and Round 2

Characteristic	Round 1		Round 2
	%	n	%	n
Sex/gender		44		21
Female	97.7	43	90.5	19
Male	2.3	1	4.8	1
Transgender			4.8	1
Affiliationa		44		21
University/academia	15.9	7	52.4	11
Hospital/clinic	13.6	6	4.8	1
Community organization (eg, social service)	45.5	20	23.8	5
Policy/government	11.4	5	14.3	3
Student/trainee	4.6	2
Otherb	11.4	5	4.8	1
Country		44		21
Canada	88.6	39	81.0	17
Ontario		37		15
British Columbia		2		2
USA	6.8	3	14.3	3
UK	2.3	1
Australia	2.3	1	4.8	1
Level of expertise about violence against older women		44		21
Very high	25.0	11	28.6	6
High	38.6	17	52.4	11
Medium	29.6	13	19.1	4
Low	6.8	3	0.0	0
Very low	0.0	0	0.0	0

Notes:

a Categories are not mutually exclusive.

b Includes professional nursing association, law enforcement services, funding organization, and feminist advocacy organization.

Table 2 Priorities, methodological approaches, and potential challenges for future research on violence against older women

Prioritya	Rank	Methodological approach	Potential challenge
Development and evaluation of interventions/promising practices for care	No. of 1st=10 No. of 2nd=4 No. of 3rd=1 No. of 4th=4 No. of 5th=2 Weighted score = 79	• Randomized control trials that are designed to capture cost–benefit by capturing resource utilization and quality of life/utility • Mixed methods research which employs qualitative interviews in the initial steps of a project, the findings of which subsequently could inform quantitative data collection • Use of language of “promising practices” as opposed to “best practices” when developing interventions	• Consideration of contextual factors • Inclusion of multiple types of abuse • Lack of standardized measures for the population under study • Selection of outcomes that different funding sectors can buy into/understand and show social return on investment
Development and evaluation of knowledge mobilization initiatives including education, training, and resources for diverse audiences	No. of 1st=7 No. of 2nd=3 No. of 3rd=4 No. of 4th=3 No. of 5th=4 Weighted score = 69	• Intersectional framework that considers the different social locations of and forms of discrimination faced by older women experiencing violence • Engagement of universities and community agencies in developing stand-alone courses and integrated content on violence against older women for students, service providers, and the public	• Lack of standardized measures to evaluate success of knowledge mobilization initiatives • Difficulty in working across sectors • Pervasiveness of “gender neutrality”
Examination of contextual and contributing factors	No. of 1st=2 No. of 2nd=5 No. of 3rd=9 No. of 4th=5 No. of 5th=0 Weighted score = 67	• “Getting women’s voices” using interviews of those with diverse lived experience • Peer-to-peer • Inclusion of organizations that older women participate in/reside at • Inclusion of debriefing and support for participants • Use of passive, non-pressured recruitment strategies • Collaboration with health authorities, long-term care facilities, community organizations, immigration services, and other organizations that can help understand relational and structural issues	• Clear and consist definition of factors • Recruitment of representative samples that include older women with diminished capacity • Overcoming obstacles associated with the informed consent process to ensure “no voices are lost” • Ensuring the availability of translation services
Evaluation of currently available services	No. of 1st=0 No. of 2nd=6 No. of 3rd=7 No. of 4th=4 No. of 5th=4 Weighted score = 57	• Mixed methods design assessing: 1. Access to and quality of care including language and transportation barriers 2. Issues related to capacity to consent 3. Policies around visitation of abusive partners in long-term care 4. Services for abusers • Use of outcome measures inclusive of diverse groups of older women	• Difficulty in engaging community in the development of appropriate manuals and protocols to guide evaluations • Recruitment, in particular, the engagement of abusers
Examination of different types of violence and abuse	No. of 1st=2 No. of 2nd=3 No. of 3rd=0 No. of 4th=5 No. of 5th=11 Weighted score = 43	• Interviews and surveys of older women and men as well as their providers	• Capturing the different topologies of domestic violence in the context of intimate relationships among older adults

Note:

a Listed from highest to lowest rank.