Skip to main content

“They just say how stupid I was for being conned”. Cyberscams and acquired brain injury: A qualitative exploration of the lived experience of survivors and close others

Kate R. Gould ; Jao-Yue J. Carminati ; Jennie L. Ponsford (2021) — Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2021.2016447 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   Acquired Brain Injury, Australia, Close Others, Cognitive Impairment, Cyberscams, Family Support, Loneliness, Online Safety, Prevention, Qualitative Interviews, Romance Scams
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This Australian qualitative study interviewed seven cyberscam survivors with severe acquired brain injury and six close others for 45-87 minutes. Reflexive thematic analysis traced vulnerability, offender tactics, the scam and its discovery, impacts, responses from others, and desired interventions. Participants described financial disadvantage, loss of trust, shame, anger, grief, and emotional distress; cognitive impairment and isolation complicated recognition, while confusion, denial, disbelief, and shame obstructed intervention and help-seeking. Some romance scams lasted up to three years and moved from dating or social platforms to private messaging while avoiding video contact. The small severe-injury sample, overlapping accounts of one survivor, and self-reported impairment and loneliness limit claims specific to brain injury or other populations.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Prior to this study, survivor-identified ABI-specific vulnerabilities, impacts on close others, and their perspectives on recovery were unknown. No effective cyberscam treatment guidelines or interventions had been identified. It remained unknown whether scams exacerbate post-ABI psychological challenges, whether ABI-related cognitive impairment independently increases romance-scam vulnerability beyond loneliness, and what constitutes effective support, reporting, and family intervention.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Australian qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews with seven cyberscam survivors with severe acquired brain injury (ABI) and six close others. Participants were recruited through ABI clinicians, support groups, networks, snowballing, and social media. Interviews (45–87 minutes) covered scam experiences, impacts, vulnerabilities, and desired help. Audio transcripts underwent inductive, constructivist reflexive thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke’s six phases; descriptive demographics were summarised in Excel.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The sample included two close others describing the same survivor’s scam exposure, so shared communication may have affected the range of accounts. All interviewed survivors had severe ABI, limiting generalisability to mild/moderate ABI or other impairment profiles. ABI-specific vulnerability claims are speculative because similar factors may occur in other high-risk groups. Cognitive impairment and loneliness were self-reported and require quantitative corroboration.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Develop and evaluate evidence-based, tailored interventions for cyberscam prevention and recovery in ABI. Study diverse ABI samples and compare them with general-population and other high-risk groups. Quantitatively corroborate self-reported cognitive and emotional risk factors, clarify whether ABI-related impairments add romance-scam risk beyond loneliness, and examine cognitive-executive predictors. Develop a susceptibility measure to support prevalence studies and intervention evaluation.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.